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 [PATCH v3] sched/numa: fix unsafe get_task_struct() in task_numa_assign() 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 an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.