[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190904131734.GD24568@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 4 Sep 2019 15:17:35 +0200
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>,
paulmck <paulmck@...ux.ibm.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
"Russell King, ARM Linux" <linux@...linux.org.uk>,
Chris Metcalf <cmetcalf@...hip.com>,
Chris Lameter <cl@...ux.com>, Kirill Tkhai <tkhai@...dex.ru>,
Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 1/2] Fix: sched/membarrier: p->mm->membarrier_state
racy load
On 09/04, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> On Wed, Sep 04, 2019 at 02:03:37PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > On 09/04, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > >
> > > + struct task_struct *g, *t;
> > > +
> > > + read_lock(&tasklist_lock);
> > > + do_each_thread(g, t) {
> >
> > for_each_process_thread() looks better
>
> Argh, I always get confused. Why do we have multiple version of this
> again?
Because I am lazy ;)
but actually for_each_process_thread() is suboptimal, I think you need
for_each_process(p) {
if (p->flags & PF_KTHREAD)
continue;
if (p->mm != mm)
continue;
for_each_thread(p, t)
atomic_or(t->membarrier_state, ...);
}
to avoid unnecessary each-thread when group leader has another ->mm.
Unfortunately a zombie leader has ->mm == NULL, so perhaps something like
for_each_process(p) {
if (p->flags & PF_KTHREAD)
continue;
for_each_thread(p, t) {
if (unlikely(!t->mm))
continue;
if (t->mm != mm)
break;
atomic_or(t->membarrier_state, ...);
}
}
and to we really need the new atomic_t member? can we use t->atomic_flags
and add PFA_MEMBARRIER_EXPEDITED ?
Oleg.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists