linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3/5] hung_task: Convert process iteration to use for_each_process

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20140409172304.GE27638@redhat.com>
Date:	Wed, 9 Apr 2014 19:23:04 +0200
From:	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To:	Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
Cc:	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/5] hung_task: Convert process iteration to use
	for_each_process_thread()

On 04/09, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
>
> @@ -167,18 +167,18 @@ static void check_hung_uninterruptible_tasks(unsigned long timeout)
>  		return;
>  
>  	rcu_read_lock();
> -	do_each_thread(g, t) {
> +	for_each_process_thread(p, t) {
>  		if (!max_count--)
>  			goto unlock;
>  		if (!--batch_count) {
>  			batch_count = HUNG_TASK_BATCHING;
> -			if (!rcu_lock_break(g, t))
> +			if (!rcu_lock_break(p, t))

Not sure. And in any case this is suboptimal. Frederic, I'll write
another email tomorrow. In fact I already have the patch which changes
check_hung_uninterruptible_tasks() somewhere.

Oleg.

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/