[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20161205173702.GA23348@linux-80c1.suse>
Date: Mon, 5 Dec 2016 09:37:02 -0800
From: Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, mingo@...nel.org,
john.stultz@...aro.org, dimitrysh@...gle.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Davidlohr Bueso <dbueso@...e.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/3] locking/percpu-rwsem: Rework writer block/wake to
not use wait-queues
On Mon, 05 Dec 2016, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>Yes. But percpu_down_write() should not be used after exit_notify(), so we
>can rely on rcu_read_lock(), release_task()->call_rcu(delayed_put_task_struct)
>can't be called until an exiting task passes exit_notify().
>
>But then we probably need WARN_ON(current->exit_state) in percpu_down_write().
Hmm, my immediate thought would have been doing a PF_EXITING check, but of course
this enlarges the window of the warn being triggered, yet maintains what you are
saying in that percpu_down_write should not be used after do_exit/exit_notify.
Furthermore, reading the comment in task_rcu_dereference, I get your point and
we can loose the reference to the task, iow busted rcu read cr.
>
>And personally I think this change should add the new helpers, they can have
>more users. Something like
>
> struct xxx {
What do you think of s/xxx/rcuwait?
Thanks,
Davidlohr
Powered by blists - more mailing lists