Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 29 Jan 2008 20:56:33 -0800 | From | "Paul E. McKenney" <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] fix tasklist + find_pid() with CONFIG_PREEMPT_RCU |
| |
On Tue, Jan 29, 2008 at 07:16:50PM -0700, Eric W. Biederman wrote: > Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> writes: > > > On Tue, 29 Jan 2008 19:40:19 +0300 > > Oleg Nesterov <oleg@tv-sign.ru> wrote: > > > >> With CONFIG_PREEMPT_RCU read_lock(tasklist_lock) doesn't imply > > rcu_read_lock(), > >> but find_pid_ns()->hlist_for_each_entry_rcu() should be safe under tasklist. > >> > >> Usually it is, detach_pid() is always called under write_lock(tasklist_lock), > >> but copy_process() calls free_pid() lockless. > >> > >> "#ifdef CONFIG_PREEMPT_RCU" is added mostly as documentation, perhaps it is > >> too ugly and should be removed. > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@tv-sign.ru> > >> > >> --- MM/kernel/fork.c~PR_RCU 2008-01-27 17:09:47.000000000 +0300 > >> +++ MM/kernel/fork.c 2008-01-29 19:23:44.000000000 +0300 > >> @@ -1335,8 +1335,19 @@ static struct task_struct *copy_process( > >> return p; > >> > >> bad_fork_free_pid: > >> - if (pid != &init_struct_pid) > >> + if (pid != &init_struct_pid) { > >> +#ifdef CONFIG_PREEMPT_RCU > >> + /* > >> + * read_lock(tasklist_lock) doesn't imply rcu_read_lock(), > >> + * make sure find_pid() is safe under read_lock(tasklist). > >> + */ > >> + write_lock_irq(&tasklist_lock); > >> +#endif > >> free_pid(pid); > >> +#ifdef CONFIG_PREEMPT_RCU > >> + write_unlock_irq(&tasklist_lock); > >> +#endif > >> + } > >> bad_fork_cleanup_namespaces: > >> exit_task_namespaces(p); > >> bad_fork_cleanup_keys: > > > > My attempt to understand this change timed out. > > > > kernel/pid.c is full of global but undocumented functions. What are the > > locking requirements for free_pid()? free_pid_ns()? If it's just > > caller-must-hold-rcu_read_lock() then why not use rcu_read_lock() here? > > > > If the locking is "caller must hold write_lock_irq(tasklist_lock) then the > > sole relevant comment in there (in free_pid()) is wrong. > > > > Guys, more maintainable code please? > > Well I took a quick look. > > Yeah this looks complex. > Mutation of the hash table is protected by pidmap_lock. > But attachments of tasks to hash entries is protected task_lock. > > And it looks like it has been that way since commit 92476d7fc0326a409ab1d3864a04093a6be9aca7 > > I thought free_pid did not have any requirements that a lock be held when > it was called, taking all of the needed locks. > > Now how read_lock doesn't imply rcu_read_lock is another question.
Although read_lock() does accidentally imply rcu_read_lock() for Classic RCU, it no longer does so for preemptible RCU.
But I thought that we had found these -- must have missed some...
Thanx, Paul
> Anyway I have to run. I will see about looking at this in a bit. > > Eric
| |