On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 07:27:52PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 07/31, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 06:31:38PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> >
> > > But can't we avoid get_task_struct()? This can pin a lot of task_struct's.
> > > Can't we just add list_del_rcu(holdout_list) into __unhash_process() ?
> >
> > If I add the list_del_rcu() there, then I am back to a concurrent list,
> > which I would like to avoid. Don't get me wrong, it was fun playing with
> > the list-locked stuff, but best to avoid it if we can.
>
> OK,
>
> > The nice thing about using get_task_struct to lock
> > them down is that -only- the task_struct itself is locked down -- the
> > task can be reaped and so on.
>
> I understand. but otoh it would be nice to not pin this memory if the
> task was already (auto)reaped.
>
> And afaics the number of pinned task_struct's is not bounded. In theory
> it is not even limited by, say, PID_MAX_LIMIT. A thread can exit and reap
> itself right after get_task_struct() but create another running thread
> which can be noticed by rcu_tasks_kthread() too.
Good point! Maybe this means that I need to have rcu_struct_kthread()
be more energetic if memory runs low, perhaps via an OOM handler.
Would that help?
> > > We only need to ensure that list_add() above can't race with that
> > > list_del(),
> > > perhaps we can tolerate lock_task_sighand() ?
> >
> > I am worried about a task that does a voluntary context switch, then exits.
> > This could results in rcu_tasks_kthread() and __unhash_process() both
> > wanting to dequeue at the same time, right?
>
> Oh yes, I was very wrong. And we do not want to abuse tasklist_lock...
>
> OK, let me try to read the patch first.
Not a problem, looking forward to your feedback!
Thanx, Paul
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
