[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160302203748.GH6356@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Wed, 2 Mar 2016 21:37:48 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Chris Metcalf <cmetcalf@...hip.com>
Cc: Gilad Ben Yossef <giladb@...hip.com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>,
Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v10 07/12] task_isolation: add debug boot flag
On Wed, Mar 02, 2016 at 03:09:31PM -0500, Chris Metcalf wrote:
> +void task_isolation_debug(int cpu)
> +{
> + struct task_struct *p;
> +
> + if (!task_isolation_possible(cpu))
> + return;
> +
> + rcu_read_lock();
> + p = cpu_curr(cpu);
> + get_task_struct(p);
As I think Oleg keeps reminding me, this is not actually a safe thing to
do.
> + rcu_read_unlock();
> + task_isolation_debug_task(cpu, p);
> + put_task_struct(p);
> +}
Powered by blists - more mailing lists