On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 09:57:33PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> Do we really want try_get_task_struct() here? How about the change below?
>
> To me it would be more clean to do get_task_struct() in task_numa_assign(),
> it clearly pairs with put_task_struct(best_task) and task_numa_compare()
> lo
On 05/18, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> OK, something like so then?
Yes thanks!
Just one note,
> +struct task_struct *task_rcu_dereference(struct task_struct **ptask)
> +{
> + struct sighand_struct *sighand;
> + struct task_struct *task;
> +
> + /*
> + * We need to verify that relea
On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 08:23:18PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> IOW. We can never know if we have a garbage in "sighand" or the real value,
> this task_struct can be freed/reallocated when we do probe_slab_address().
>
> And this is fine. We re-check that "task == *ptask" after that. Now we have
On 05/18, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> So I keep coming back to this, and every time I look at it my brain
> explodes.
Heh ;) I forgot about this completely.
> On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 08:54:46PM +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > +struct task_struct *task_rcu_dereference(struct task_struct **ptask)
> >
So I keep coming back to this, and every time I look at it my brain
explodes.
On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 08:54:46PM +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> +struct task_struct *task_rcu_dereference(struct task_struct **ptask)
> +{
> + struct task_struct *task;
> + struct sighand_struct *sighand;
I th
В Пн, 27/10/2014 в 20:54 +0100, Oleg Nesterov пишет:
> task_struct is only protected by RCU if it was found on a RCU protected
> list (say, for_each_process() or find_task_by_vpid()).
>
> And as Kirill pointed out rq->curr isn't protected by RCU, the scheduler
> drops the (potentially) last refere
6 matches
Mail list logo
