From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
To: Jiri Slaby <jirislaby@kernel.org>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@xmission.com>,
Christian Brauner <brauner@kernel.org>,
Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>,
linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] kill do_each_thread()
Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2023 10:16:17 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20230818081617.GA5339@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <d92e7938-49e0-3b4c-89ab-77dcd15b8676@kernel.org>
On 08/18, Jiri Slaby wrote:
>
> On 17. 08. 23, 18:37, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> >Eric has pointed out that we still have 3 users of do_each_thread().
> >Change them to use for_each_process_thread() and kill this helper.
>
> Is there any change in behavior?
No.
Well, there is a subtle change, after do_each_thread/while_each_thread
g == t == &init_task, while after for_each_process_thread() they both
point to nowhere, but this doesn't matter.
> Why is for_each_process_thread() better than do_each_thread()?
Say, for_each_process_thread() is rcu safe, do_each_thread() is not.
And certainly
for_each_process_thread(p, t) {
do_something(p, t);
}
looks better than
do_each_thread(p, t) {
do_something(p, t);
} while_each_thread(p, t);
And again, there are only 3 users of this awkward helper left.
It should have been killed years ago and in fact I thought it
had already been killed. It uses while_each_thread() which needs
some changes.
Oleg.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-08-18 8:18 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-08-17 16:37 [PATCH] kill do_each_thread() Oleg Nesterov
2023-08-17 16:53 ` Kees Cook
2023-08-18 6:04 ` Jiri Slaby
2023-08-18 8:16 ` Oleg Nesterov [this message]
2023-08-18 8:25 ` Jiri Slaby
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=20230818081617.GA5339@redhat.com \
--to=oleg@redhat.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=brauner@kernel.org \
--cc=ebiederm@xmission.com \
--cc=jirislaby@kernel.org \
--cc=keescook@chromium.org \
--cc=linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
/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.