[lkml]   [2014]   [Oct]   [23]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: introduce task_rcu_dereference?
On 10/23, Kirill Tkhai wrote:
> I'm agree generic helper is better. But probe_slab_address() has a sence
> if we know that SDBR is worse in our subject area.

And I still think it is worse.

> Less of code is
> easier to support :)

Sure, but ignoring the comments, SDBR needs the same code in
task_rcu_dereference() ? Except, of course

- probe_slab_address(&task->sighand, sighand);
+ sighand = task->sighand;

or how do you think we can simplify it?

> probe_slab_address() it's not a trivial logic.

But it already has a user. And probably it can have more.

To me the usage of SDBR is not trivial (and confusing) in this case.
Once again, ignoring the CONFIG_DEBUG_PAGEALLOC problems it does not
help at all.

With or without SDBR rq->curr can be reused and we need to avoid this
race. The fact that with SDBR it can be reused only as another instance
of task_struct is absolutely immaterial imo.

Not to mention that SDBR still adds some overhead while probe_slab()
is free unless CONFIG_DEBUG_PAGEALLOC, but this option adds a large
slowdown anyway.

But again, I can't really work today, perhaps I missed something.
Perhaps you can show a better code which relies on SDBR?


 \ /
  Last update: 2014-10-23 21:01    [W:5.854 / U:0.024 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site