Re: [PATCH v2 0/4] task: Making tasks on the runqueue rcu protected
Peter Zijlstra writes: > On Tue, Sep 17, 2019 at 12:38:04PM -0500, Eric W. Biederman wrote: >> Linus Torvalds writes: > >> > Can anybody see anything wrong with the series? Because I'd love to >> > have it for 5.4, >> >> Peter, >> >> I am more than happy for these to come through your tree. However >> if this is one thing to many I will be happy to send Linus a pull >> request myself early next week. > > Yeah, sorry for being late, I fell ill after LPC and am only now > getting back to things. > > I see nothing wrong with these patches; if they've not been picked up > (and I'm not seeing them in Linus' tree yet) I'll pick them up now and > munge them together with Mathieu's membarrier patches and get them to > Linus in a few days. Sounds good. I had some distractions so I wasn't able to get this yet. So I am more than happy for you to pick these up. This is better coming through your tree in any event. Eric
Re: [PATCH v2 0/4] task: Making tasks on the runqueue rcu protected
On Tue, Sep 17, 2019 at 12:38:04PM -0500, Eric W. Biederman wrote: > Linus Torvalds writes: > > Can anybody see anything wrong with the series? Because I'd love to > > have it for 5.4, > > Peter, > > I am more than happy for these to come through your tree. However > if this is one thing to many I will be happy to send Linus a pull > request myself early next week. Yeah, sorry for being late, I fell ill after LPC and am only now getting back to things. I see nothing wrong with these patches; if they've not been picked up (and I'm not seeing them in Linus' tree yet) I'll pick them up now and munge them together with Mathieu's membarrier patches and get them to Linus in a few days.
Re: [PATCH v2 0/4] task: Making tasks on the runqueue rcu protected
Linus Torvalds writes: > On Sat, Sep 14, 2019 at 5:30 AM Eric W. Biederman > wrote: >> >> I have reworked these patches one more time to make it clear that the >> first 3 patches only fix task_struct so that it experiences a rcu grace >> period after it leaves the runqueue for the last time. > > I remain a fan of these patches, and the added comment on the last one > is I think a sufficient clarification of the issue. > > But it's patch 3 that makes me go "yeah, this is the right approach", > because it just removes subtle code in favor of something that is > understandable. > > Yes, most of the lines removed may be comments, and so it doesn't > actually remove a lot of _code_, but I think the comments are a result > of just how subtle and fragile our current approach is, and the new > model not needing them as much is I think a real issue (rather than > just Eric being less verbose in the new comments and removing lines of > code that way). In fact the comments I add are orthogonal to the comments I removed. My last patch stands on it's own. It can be applied with or without the rest. I just needed to know which of the ordinary rcu guarantees were or were not present in the code. > Can anybody see anything wrong with the series? Because I'd love to > have it for 5.4, Peter, I am more than happy for these to come through your tree. However if this is one thing to many I will be happy to send Linus a pull request myself early next week. Eric
Re: [PATCH v2 0/4] task: Making tasks on the runqueue rcu protected
On Sat, Sep 14, 2019 at 5:30 AM Eric W. Biederman wrote: > > I have reworked these patches one more time to make it clear that the > first 3 patches only fix task_struct so that it experiences a rcu grace > period after it leaves the runqueue for the last time. I remain a fan of these patches, and the added comment on the last one is I think a sufficient clarification of the issue. But it's patch 3 that makes me go "yeah, this is the right approach", because it just removes subtle code in favor of something that is understandable. Yes, most of the lines removed may be comments, and so it doesn't actually remove a lot of _code_, but I think the comments are a result of just how subtle and fragile our current approach is, and the new model not needing them as much is I think a real issue (rather than just Eric being less verbose in the new comments and removing lines of code that way). Can anybody see anything wrong with the series? Because I'd love to have it for 5.4, Linus
