From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
Cc: Kirill Tkhai <tkhai@yandex.ru>,
Kirill Tkhai <ktkhai@parallels.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
Vladimir Davydov <vdavydov@parallels.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] sched/numa: fix unsafe get_task_struct() in task_numa_assign()
Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2014 11:45:58 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20141021094558.GQ23531@worktop.programming.kicks-ass.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20141020205006.GA2500@redhat.com>
On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 10:50:06PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> Let me explain what I personally dislike in v3:
>
> - I think that we do not have enough reasons for
> SLAB_DESTROY_BY_RCU. This is the serious change.
What exactly would the downsides be? SDBR has very limited space
overhead iirc.
> - Again, perhaps we should start we a simple and stupid fix.
> We can do get_task_struct() under rq->lock or, if nothing
> else, just
>
> raw_spin_lock_irq(&rq->lock);
> cur = rq->curr;
> if (is_idle_task(cur) || (cur->flags & PF_EXITING))
> cur = NULL;
> raw_spin_unlock_irq(&rq->lock);
I think I agree with you, this is the simple safe option and is
something we can easily backport. After that we can add creative bits on
top.
I think I prefer the SLAB_DESTROY_BY_RCU thing over the probe_kernel
thing -- but we can take our time once we've fixed the immediate issue
with the simple option.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-10-21 9:46 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 22+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-10-20 10:15 Kirill Tkhai
2014-10-20 14:47 ` Oleg Nesterov
2014-10-20 16:56 ` Oleg Nesterov
2014-10-20 18:27 ` Oleg Nesterov
2014-10-20 20:18 ` Kirill Tkhai
2014-10-20 20:50 ` Oleg Nesterov
2014-10-20 21:05 ` Kirill Tkhai
2014-10-20 21:34 ` Oleg Nesterov
2014-10-20 22:57 ` Peter Zijlstra
2014-10-21 9:45 ` Peter Zijlstra [this message]
2014-10-21 19:03 ` Oleg Nesterov
2014-10-21 20:03 ` Kirill Tkhai
2014-10-21 20:10 ` Kirill Tkhai
2014-10-22 9:09 ` Peter Zijlstra
2014-10-22 16:14 ` Oleg Nesterov
2014-10-22 16:37 ` Peter Zijlstra
2014-10-22 18:14 ` introduce probe_slab_address? (Was: sched/numa: fix unsafe get_task_struct() in task_numa_assign()) Oleg Nesterov
2014-10-22 18:59 ` introduce probe_slab_address? David Miller
2014-10-22 19:42 ` Oleg Nesterov
2014-10-22 20:08 ` David Miller
2014-10-22 20:20 ` Oleg Nesterov
2014-10-24 9:44 ` Peter Zijlstra
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20141021094558.GQ23531@worktop.programming.kicks-ass.net \
--to=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=ktkhai@parallels.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=oleg@redhat.com \
--cc=tkhai@yandex.ru \
--cc=vdavydov@parallels.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
Powered by JetHome