Messages in this thread | | | From | (Eric W. Biederman) | Date | Tue, 17 Sep 2019 12:38:04 -0500 | Subject | Re: [PATCH v2 0/4] task: Making tasks on the runqueue rcu protected |
| |
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> writes:
> On Sat, Sep 14, 2019 at 5:30 AM Eric W. Biederman <ebiederm@xmission.com> wrote: >> >> I have reworked these patches one more time to make it clear that the >> first 3 patches only fix task_struct so that it experiences a rcu grace >> period after it leaves the runqueue for the last time. > > I remain a fan of these patches, and the added comment on the last one > is I think a sufficient clarification of the issue. > > But it's patch 3 that makes me go "yeah, this is the right approach", > because it just removes subtle code in favor of something that is > understandable. > > Yes, most of the lines removed may be comments, and so it doesn't > actually remove a lot of _code_, but I think the comments are a result > of just how subtle and fragile our current approach is, and the new > model not needing them as much is I think a real issue (rather than > just Eric being less verbose in the new comments and removing lines of > code that way).
In fact the comments I add are orthogonal to the comments I removed. My last patch stands on it's own. It can be applied with or without the rest. I just needed to know which of the ordinary rcu guarantees were or were not present in the code.
> Can anybody see anything wrong with the series? Because I'd love to > have it for 5.4,
Peter,
I am more than happy for these to come through your tree. However if this is one thing to many I will be happy to send Linus a pull request myself early next week.
Eric
| |