[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <152474044955.29458.13116121113099868575.stgit@localhost.localdomain>
Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2018 14:00:49 +0300
From: Kirill Tkhai <ktkhai@...tuozzo.com>
To: akpm@...ux-foundation.org, peterz@...radead.org, oleg@...hat.com,
viro@...iv.linux.org.uk, mingo@...nel.org,
paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, keescook@...omium.org, riel@...hat.com,
mhocko@...e.com, tglx@...utronix.de,
kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com, marcos.souza.org@...il.com,
hoeun.ryu@...il.com, pasha.tatashin@...cle.com, gs051095@...il.com,
ebiederm@...ssion.com, dhowells@...hat.com,
rppt@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
ktkhai@...tuozzo.com
Subject: [PATCH 2/4] exit: Use rcu instead of get_task_struct() in
mm_update_next_owner()
Since release_task() puts final task_struct::usage counter
at least one rcu grace period after removing from task list:
__exit_signal()
__unhash_process()
call_rcu(&p->rcu, delayed_put_task_struct)
rcu_read_lock() guarantees nobody release task_struct memory.
So, it's possible to use this primitive instead of get_task_struct().
Signed-off-by: Kirill Tkhai <ktkhai@...tuozzo.com>
---
kernel/exit.c | 6 +++---
1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/kernel/exit.c b/kernel/exit.c
index 9fb7b699bdeb..5c42a9b9c1d7 100644
--- a/kernel/exit.c
+++ b/kernel/exit.c
@@ -464,7 +464,7 @@ void mm_update_next_owner(struct mm_struct *mm)
return;
assign_new_owner:
- get_task_struct(c);
+ rcu_read_lock();
read_unlock(&tasklist_lock);
BUG_ON(c == p);
@@ -475,12 +475,12 @@ void mm_update_next_owner(struct mm_struct *mm)
task_lock(c);
if (c->mm != mm) {
task_unlock(c);
- put_task_struct(c);
+ rcu_read_unlock();
goto retry;
}
mm->owner = c;
task_unlock(c);
- put_task_struct(c);
+ rcu_read_unlock();
}
#endif /* CONFIG_MEMCG */
Powered by blists - more mailing lists