[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20210305105756.GA20900@redhat.com>
Date: Fri, 5 Mar 2021 11:57:57 +0100
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Ben Segall <bsegall@...gle.com>, Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@...hat.com>,
Matt Fleming <matt@...eblueprint.co.uk>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] signal: Allow RT tasks to cache one sigqueue struct
On 03/04, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>
> On Wed, Mar 03 2021 at 16:37, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > On 03/03, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> >>
> >> +static struct sigqueue *sigqueue_from_cache(struct task_struct *t)
> >> +{
> >> + struct sigqueue *q = t->sigqueue_cache;
> >> +
> >> + if (q && cmpxchg(&t->sigqueue_cache, q, NULL) == q)
> >> + return q;
> >> + return NULL;
> >> +}
> >> +
> >> +static bool sigqueue_add_cache(struct task_struct *t, struct sigqueue *q)
> >> +{
> >> + if (!t->sigqueue_cache && cmpxchg(&t->sigqueue_cache, NULL, q) == NULL)
> >> + return true;
> >> + return false;
> >> +}
> >
> > Do we really need cmpxchg? It seems they are always called with
> > spinlock held.
>
> With which spinlock held?
>
> __send_signal() <- sighand::siglock held
> __sigqueue_alloc()
>
> alloc_posix_timer()
> sigqueue_alloc() <- No lock held
> __sigqueue_alloc()
In the last case "fromslab" is true, sigqueue_from_cache() won't be called.
> and on the free side we have a bunch of callers which do not hold
> sighand::siglock either.
Where?
Oleg.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists