mirror of https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
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.

  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