On Thu, 5 Dec 2013, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > Minor: should the definitions of thread_{head,node} be annotated with
> > __rcu for users of CONFIG_SPARSE_RCU_POINTER?
>
> Perhaps. And perhaps task_struct->tasks. And perhaps we should add
> rcu_read_lock_held() || lockdep_is_held(tasklist) ||
On 12/04, David Rientjes wrote:
>
> Acked-by: David Rientjes
Thanks!
> Minor: should the definitions of thread_{head,node} be annotated with
> __rcu for users of CONFIG_SPARSE_RCU_POINTER?
Perhaps. And perhaps task_struct->tasks. And perhaps we should add
rcu_read_lock_held() ||
On 12/04, David Rientjes wrote:
Acked-by: David Rientjes rient...@google.com
Thanks!
Minor: should the definitions of thread_{head,node} be annotated with
__rcu for users of CONFIG_SPARSE_RCU_POINTER?
Perhaps. And perhaps task_struct-tasks. And perhaps we should add
rcu_read_lock_held() ||
On Thu, 5 Dec 2013, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
Minor: should the definitions of thread_{head,node} be annotated with
__rcu for users of CONFIG_SPARSE_RCU_POINTER?
Perhaps. And perhaps task_struct-tasks. And perhaps we should add
rcu_read_lock_held() || lockdep_is_held(tasklist) ||
On Wed, 4 Dec 2013, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> while_each_thread() and next_thread() should die, almost every
> lockless usage is wrong.
>
> 1. Unless g == current, the lockless while_each_thread() is not safe.
>
>while_each_thread(g, t) can loop forever if g exits, next_thread()
>can't
On 12/04, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
>
> On Wed, Dec 04, 2013 at 02:49:17PM +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> >
> > Yes, perhaps we will need for_each_thread_continue(). I am not sure
> > yet. And note that, say, check_hung_uninterruptible_tasks() already
> > does _continue if fact, although it is
On Wed, Dec 04, 2013 at 02:49:17PM +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 12/04, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Dec 04, 2013 at 02:04:09PM +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> >
> > > For example, do/while_each_thread() always
> > > sees at least one task, while for_each_thread() can do nothing if
On 12/04, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
>
> On Wed, Dec 04, 2013 at 02:04:09PM +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>
> > For example, do/while_each_thread() always
> > sees at least one task, while for_each_thread() can do nothing if
> > the whole thread group has died.
>
> Would it be safe to have
On Wed, Dec 04, 2013 at 02:04:09PM +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> while_each_thread() and next_thread() should die, almost every
> lockless usage is wrong.
>
> 1. Unless g == current, the lockless while_each_thread() is not safe.
>
>while_each_thread(g, t) can loop forever if g exits,
while_each_thread() and next_thread() should die, almost every
lockless usage is wrong.
1. Unless g == current, the lockless while_each_thread() is not safe.
while_each_thread(g, t) can loop forever if g exits, next_thread()
can't reach the unhashed thread in this case. Note that this can
while_each_thread() and next_thread() should die, almost every
lockless usage is wrong.
1. Unless g == current, the lockless while_each_thread() is not safe.
while_each_thread(g, t) can loop forever if g exits, next_thread()
can't reach the unhashed thread in this case. Note that this can
On Wed, Dec 04, 2013 at 02:04:09PM +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
while_each_thread() and next_thread() should die, almost every
lockless usage is wrong.
1. Unless g == current, the lockless while_each_thread() is not safe.
while_each_thread(g, t) can loop forever if g exits, next_thread()
On 12/04, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
On Wed, Dec 04, 2013 at 02:04:09PM +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
For example, do/while_each_thread() always
sees at least one task, while for_each_thread() can do nothing if
the whole thread group has died.
Would it be safe to have
On Wed, Dec 04, 2013 at 02:49:17PM +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
On 12/04, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
On Wed, Dec 04, 2013 at 02:04:09PM +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
For example, do/while_each_thread() always
sees at least one task, while for_each_thread() can do nothing if
the whole
On 12/04, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
On Wed, Dec 04, 2013 at 02:49:17PM +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
Yes, perhaps we will need for_each_thread_continue(). I am not sure
yet. And note that, say, check_hung_uninterruptible_tasks() already
does _continue if fact, although it is still not
On Wed, 4 Dec 2013, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
while_each_thread() and next_thread() should die, almost every
lockless usage is wrong.
1. Unless g == current, the lockless while_each_thread() is not safe.
while_each_thread(g, t) can loop forever if g exits, next_thread()
can't reach the
16 matches
Mail list logo
