Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 4 Dec 2008 10:35:37 -0500 (EST) | From | Steven Rostedt <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 2/3] ftrace: use struct pid |
| |
On Thu, 4 Dec 2008, Dave Hansen wrote: > > >> > > >> Could we get away with sticking the rcu_read_{un}lock() inside those > > >> macros? Those are going to get used in pretty high level code and we're > > >> allowed to nest rcu_read_lock(). No danger of deadlocks or lock > > >> inversions. > > > > > > Why don't any of the other users of do_each_pid_task() use > > > rcu_read_lock()? They all seem to be under read_lock(&tasklist_lock) > > > (except one is under a write lock of the same). > > > > We probably should. Historically read_lock(&tasklist_lock) implies > > rcu_read_lock(). > > You mean because the current task can't go through a quiescent period > until it hits userspace, and we can't go to userspace while holding > read_lock()? Nah, that's not subtle. ;)
Has nothing to do with userspace. We can not go through a quiescent period while holding a rcu_read_lock, or if preemption is disabled. read_lock prevents preemption, as does spin_locks.
> > > And the tasklist lock is what we hold when it is safe. > > > > But if you look at find_vpid we should be holding just the rcu lock there. > > Yup, I see it there. > > So, any reason not to do this? Brown-bag compile tested. > > Signed-off-by: Dave Hansen <dave@linux.vnet.ibm.com> > > --- > > linux-2.6.git-dave/include/linux/pid.h | 2 ++ > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+) > > diff -puN include/linux/pid.h~put-rcu-ops-in-do_each_pid_task include/linux/pid.h > --- linux-2.6.git/include/linux/pid.h~put-rcu-ops-in-do_each_pid_task 2008-12-04 06:03:09.000000000 -0800 > +++ linux-2.6.git-dave/include/linux/pid.h 2008-12-04 06:19:35.000000000 -0800 > @@ -147,6 +147,7 @@ pid_t pid_vnr(struct pid *pid); > #define do_each_pid_task(pid, type, task) \ > do { \ > struct hlist_node *pos___; \ > + rcu_read_lock(); \ > if (pid != NULL) \ > hlist_for_each_entry_rcu((task), pos___, \ > &pid->tasks[type], pids[type].node) { > @@ -159,6 +160,7 @@ pid_t pid_vnr(struct pid *pid); > if (type == PIDTYPE_PID) \ > break; \ > } \ > + rcu_read_unlock(); \ > } while (0)
That probably could work.
-- Steve
| |