All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
To: Davidlohr Bueso <dave@stgolabs.net>
Cc: akpm@linux-foundation.org, peterz@infradead.org,
	paulmck@kernel.org, tglx@linutronix.de,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Davidlohr Bueso <dbueso@suse.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] kernel/sys: only rely on rcu for getpriority(2)
Date: Tue, 12 May 2020 20:16:14 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20200512181613.GD28621@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200512165824.t6ktwllqlvkiingv@linux-p48b>

On 05/12, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
>
> Right, but setting the flag is an indication that the tasklist_lock
> will be taken

Yes,

> and removed from the list,

Well no. If this task is not a group leader, or if it is traced this won't
happen "soon", this will happen when parent or debugger call wait().

But this doesn't matter. Lets suppose that the task is always removed from
the list right after it sets PF_EXITING. Now,

> and therefore we could
> optimistically avoid considering that task altogether

Why?? This is what I can't understand.

If sys_getpriority() sees PF_EXITING, we can pretend it was called before
this task has exited, or even right before this flag was set. Why should we
skip this task?

And otoh, this check can not help in any case, PF_EXITING can be set right
after the check.

So I still think this check can only add the unnecessary confusion, even if
we forget about change in behaviour.

And finally, whatever I missed, I do not understand how this connects to
"avoid the tasklist_lock". Whether we want it or not does not depend on
the locking, at all.

Oleg.


  reply	other threads:[~2020-05-12 18:16 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2020-05-12  0:03 [PATCH -next v2 0/2] kernel/sys: reduce tasklist_lock usage get/set priorities Davidlohr Bueso
2020-05-12  0:03 ` [PATCH 1/2] kernel/sys: only rely on rcu for getpriority(2) Davidlohr Bueso
2020-05-12 15:09   ` Oleg Nesterov
2020-05-12 16:09     ` Davidlohr Bueso
2020-05-12 16:41       ` Oleg Nesterov
2020-05-12 16:58         ` Davidlohr Bueso
2020-05-12 18:16           ` Oleg Nesterov [this message]
2020-05-12  0:03 ` [PATCH 2/2] kernel/sys: do not grab tasklist_lock for sys_setpriority(PRIO_PROCESS) Davidlohr Bueso
2020-05-12 16:10   ` Oleg Nesterov

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20200512181613.GD28621@redhat.com \
    --to=oleg@redhat.com \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=dave@stgolabs.net \
    --cc=dbueso@suse.de \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=paulmck@kernel.org \
    --cc=peterz@infradead.org \
    --cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body. 
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.