On Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 11:58 AM, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 06/27, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>>
>> On 06/27, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>> >
>> > Want to send a patch? I could do it, but you understand this code
>> > much better than I do.
>>
>> Well, I'll try to do this tomorrow unless you do it.
>
> I h
On Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 3:59 PM, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 06/28, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 1:12 PM, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>> >
>> > So please forget unless you see another reason for this change.
>> >
>>
>> But I might need to that anyway for procfs to read the the stac
On 06/28, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 1:12 PM, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> >
> > So please forget unless you see another reason for this change.
> >
>
> But I might need to that anyway for procfs to read the the stack,
> right? Do you see another way to handle that case?
Well,
On 06/28, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
> Then try_get_task_stack(tsk) becomes
>
> void *try_get_task_stack(struct task_struct *tsk)
> {
> void *stack = tsk->stack;
> if (!atomic_inc_not_zero(&tsk->stackref))
>stack = NULL;
> return stack;
> }
On Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 2:35 PM, Linus Torvalds
wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 2:21 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>
>> If so, that seems considerably more complicated than just adding a reference
>> count.
>
> Fair enough.
Ahh, and if you put the reference count just in the task_struct (next
to
On Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 2:21 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>
> Or are you
> suggesting that we actually make a list somewhere of stacks that are
> nominally unused but are still around for RCU's benefit and then
> scavenge from that lest when we need a new stack?
Yes. We'd have to make our own list
On Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 2:14 PM, Linus Torvalds
wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 1:54 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>>
>> But I might need to that anyway for procfs to read the the stack,
>> right? Do you see another way to handle that case?
>
> I think the other way to handle the kernel stack read
On Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 2:14 PM, Linus Torvalds
wrote:
>
> I think the other way to handle the kernel stack reading would be to
> simply make the stack freeing be RCU-delayed, and use the RCU list
> itself as the stack cache.
That said, if you end up having to have a stack reference count for
oth
On Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 1:54 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>
> But I might need to that anyway for procfs to read the the stack,
> right? Do you see another way to handle that case?
I think the other way to handle the kernel stack reading would be to
simply make the stack freeing be RCU-delayed, an
On Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 1:12 PM, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 06/28, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 11:58 AM, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>> >
>> > Then how (say) proc_pid_stack() can work? If it hits the task which is
>> > alreay dead we are (probably) fine, valid_stack_ptr() should
On 06/28, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 11:58 AM, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> >
> > Then how (say) proc_pid_stack() can work? If it hits the task which is
> > alreay dead we are (probably) fine, valid_stack_ptr() should fail iiuc.
> >
> > But what if we race with the last schedule(
On Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 11:58 AM, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 06/27, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>>
>> On 06/27, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>> >
>> > Want to send a patch? I could do it, but you understand this code
>> > much better than I do.
>>
>> Well, I'll try to do this tomorrow unless you do it.
>
> I h
On 06/27, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>
> On 06/27, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> >
> > Want to send a patch? I could do it, but you understand this code
> > much better than I do.
>
> Well, I'll try to do this tomorrow unless you do it.
I have cloned luto/linux.git to see if kthread_stop() can pin ->stack
s
On Sun, Jun 26, 2016 at 10:22 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>
> kthread_stop is *sick*.
>
> struct kthread self;
>
>
> current->vfork_done = &self.exited;
>
>
> do_exit(ret);
>
> And then some other thread goes and waits for the completion, which is
> *on the stack*, which, in any sane wo
On 06/27, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 7:54 AM, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> >
> >> Is there seriously no way to directly wait for a struct task_struct to
> >> exit? Could we, say, kmalloc the completion (or maybe even the whole
> >> struct kthread) and (ick!) hang it off ->vfork_
On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 7:54 AM, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 06/26, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>>
>> kthread_stop is *sick*.
>>
>> struct kthread self;
>>
>> ...
>>
>> current->vfork_done = &self.exited;
>>
>> ...
>>
>> do_exit(ret);
>>
>> And then some other thread goes and waits for the co
On 06/26, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>
> kthread_stop is *sick*.
>
> struct kthread self;
>
> ...
>
> current->vfork_done = &self.exited;
>
> ...
>
> do_exit(ret);
>
> And then some other thread goes and waits for the completion, which is
> *on the stack*, which, in any sane world (e.g. wit
On Sun, Jun 26, 2016 at 10:22:32PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> kthread_stop is *sick*.
>
> struct kthread self;
>
> ...
>
> current->vfork_done = &self.exited;
>
> ...
>
> do_exit(ret);
>
> And then some other thread goes and waits for the completion, which is
> *on the stack*
My v4 series was doing pretty well until this explosion:
On Sun, Jun 26, 2016 at 9:41 PM, kernel test robot
wrote:
>
>
> FYI, we noticed the following commit:
>
> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/luto/linux.git x86/vmap_stack
> commit 26424589626d7f82d09d4e7c0569f9487b2e810a ("[DEB
19 matches
Mail list logo
