[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20141023181818.GB2740@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2014 20:18:18 +0200
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: Kirill Tkhai <ktkhai@...allels.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Vladimir Davydov <vdavydov@...allels.com>,
Kirill Tkhai <tkhai@...dex.ru>
Subject: Re: introduce task_rcu_dereference?
On 10/23, Kirill Tkhai wrote:
>
> I'm agree generic helper is better. But probe_slab_address() has a sence
> if we know that SDBR is worse in our subject area.
And I still think it is worse.
> Less of code is
> easier to support :)
Sure, but ignoring the comments, SDBR needs the same code in
task_rcu_dereference() ? Except, of course
- probe_slab_address(&task->sighand, sighand);
+ sighand = task->sighand;
or how do you think we can simplify it?
> probe_slab_address() it's not a trivial logic.
But it already has a user. And probably it can have more.
To me the usage of SDBR is not trivial (and confusing) in this case.
Once again, ignoring the CONFIG_DEBUG_PAGEALLOC problems it does not
help at all.
With or without SDBR rq->curr can be reused and we need to avoid this
race. The fact that with SDBR it can be reused only as another instance
of task_struct is absolutely immaterial imo.
Not to mention that SDBR still adds some overhead while probe_slab()
is free unless CONFIG_DEBUG_PAGEALLOC, but this option adds a large
slowdown anyway.
But again, I can't really work today, perhaps I missed something.
Perhaps you can show a better code which relies on SDBR?
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists