[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Y/zWPoCjQ6gLSNGU@maniforge>
Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2023 10:11:42 -0600
From: David Vernet <void@...ifault.com>
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Cc: mingo@...hat.com, peterz@...radead.org, juri.lelli@...hat.com,
vincent.guittot@...aro.org, rostedt@...dmis.org,
bsegall@...gle.com, mgorman@...e.de, bristot@...hat.com,
vschneid@...hat.com, kernel-team@...a.com,
torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, ebiederm@...ssion.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] tasks: Extract rcu_users out of union
On Fri, Feb 17, 2023 at 11:25:21AM +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 02/16, David Vernet wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Feb 16, 2023 at 09:04:59AM +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > >
> > > > a task that's successfully looked
> > > > up in e.g. the pid_list with find_task_by_pid_ns(), can always have a
> > > > 'usage' reference acquired on them, as it's guaranteed to be >
> > > > 0 until after the next gp.
> > >
> > > Yes. So it seems you need another key-to-task_struct map with rcu-safe
> > > lookup/get and thus the add() method needs inc_not_zero(task->rcu_users) ?
> >
> > Yes, exactly.
>
> OK, in this case I agree, inc_not_zero(rcu_users) makes sense and thus we need
> this patch.
Thanks again for taking a look.
>
> Just I was confused by the previous part of the changelog due to my bad English.
No worries at all -- the commit summary definitely could have been more
clear.
Does anyone else have any thoughts? Is there anything else we need to do
for this patch to land?
Thanks,
David
Powered by blists - more mailing lists