[PATCH 0/8] mm: introduce for_each_process_rcu and for_each_thread_rcu

[PATCH 0/8] mm: introduce for_each_process_rcu and for_each_thread_rcu

[Ye Liu]

From: Ye Liu <liuye@kylinos.cn>

Introduce for_each_process_rcu(), for_each_thread_rcu() and
for_each_process_thread_rcu() macros that combine the existing
iteration macros with scoped_guard(rcu), so that the RCU read lock
is automatically acquired before iteration and released when the
loop exits — including via break, goto, or return.

The rest of the series converts manual rcu_read_lock()/
rcu_read_unlock() and guard(rcu)() pairs across mm/, kernel/, fs/,
lib/ and security/ to use the new macros.

Patch 1 may trigger checkpatch "Macros with complex values should be
enclosed in parentheses" errors.  These are false positives — the
scoped_guard() pattern is a control-flow construct, not a multi-
statement macro, and the same idiom is used elsewhere in the kernel.

Suggested by Michal Hocko for the oom_kill path [1].

[1] https://lore.kernel.org/all/20260813092933.562028-1-ye.liu@linux.dev/

Ye Liu (8):
  mm: introduce for_each_process_rcu and for_each_thread_rcu
  mm/oom_kill: convert process/thread iterators to for_each_*_rcu
  mm/ksm: convert process iterator to for_each_process_rcu
  mm/memory-failure: convert process iterator to for_each_process_rcu
  kernel: convert process/thread iterators to for_each_*_rcu
  fs: convert process/thread iterators to for_each_*_rcu
  lib: convert process iterator to for_each_process_rcu
  security/landlock: convert thread iterator to for_each_thread_rcu

 fs/proc/base.c               |  4 +---
 fs/resctrl/rdtgroup.c        |  8 ++------
 include/linux/sched/signal.h | 19 +++++++++++++++++++
 kernel/cpu.c                 |  4 +---
 kernel/freezer.c             |  4 +---
 kernel/hung_task.c           |  7 ++-----
 kernel/locking/lockdep.c     |  4 +---
 kernel/rcu/update.c          |  4 +---
 kernel/sched/core.c          |  3 +--
 kernel/sched/debug.c         |  4 +---
 kernel/trace/fgraph.c        |  8 ++------
 kernel/unwind/deferred.c     |  3 +--
 lib/is_single_threaded.c     |  5 +----
 mm/ksm.c                     |  4 +---
 mm/memory-failure.c          | 16 ++++------------
 mm/oom_kill.c                | 20 +++++---------------
 security/landlock/tsync.c    |  8 ++------
 17 files changed, 46 insertions(+), 79 deletions(-)

Signed-off-by: Ye Liu <liuye@kylinos.cn>

--
2.25.1

[PATCH 6/8] fs: convert process/thread iterators to for_each_*_rcu

[Ye Liu]

From: Ye Liu <liuye@kylinos.cn>

Replace the manual rcu_read_lock()/rcu_read_unlock() pairs combined
with for_each_process() and for_each_process_thread() loops in fs/
with the for_each_*_rcu() macros.

No functional change.

Signed-off-by: Ye Liu <liuye@kylinos.cn>
---
 fs/proc/base.c        | 4 +---
 fs/resctrl/rdtgroup.c | 8 ++------
 2 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)

diff --git a/fs/proc/base.c b/fs/proc/base.c
index 6a39de424f62..da36ba73dc17 100644
--- a/fs/proc/base.c
+++ b/fs/proc/base.c
@@ -1160,8 +1160,7 @@ static int __set_oom_adj(struct file *file, int oom_adj, bool legacy)
 	if (mm) {
 		struct task_struct *p;
 
-		rcu_read_lock();
-		for_each_process(p) {
+		for_each_process_rcu(p) {
 			if (same_thread_group(task, p))
 				continue;
 
@@ -1177,7 +1176,6 @@ static int __set_oom_adj(struct file *file, int oom_adj, bool legacy)
 			}
 			task_unlock(p);
 		}
-		rcu_read_unlock();
 		mmdrop(mm);
 	}
 err_unlock:
diff --git a/fs/resctrl/rdtgroup.c b/fs/resctrl/rdtgroup.c
index 5dcbb0a964e8..3f96d21b84ab 100644
--- a/fs/resctrl/rdtgroup.c
+++ b/fs/resctrl/rdtgroup.c
@@ -709,14 +709,12 @@ int rdtgroup_tasks_assigned(struct rdtgroup *r)
 
 	lockdep_assert_held(&rdtgroup_mutex);
 
-	rcu_read_lock();
-	for_each_process_thread(p, t) {
+	for_each_process_thread_rcu(p, t) {
 		if (is_closid_match(t, r) || is_rmid_match(t, r)) {
 			ret = 1;
 			break;
 		}
 	}
-	rcu_read_unlock();
 
 	return ret;
 }
@@ -826,15 +824,13 @@ static void show_rdt_tasks(struct rdtgroup *r, struct seq_file *s)
 	struct task_struct *p, *t;
 	pid_t pid;
 
-	rcu_read_lock();
-	for_each_process_thread(p, t) {
+	for_each_process_thread_rcu(p, t) {
 		if (is_closid_match(t, r) || is_rmid_match(t, r)) {
 			pid = task_pid_vnr(t);
 			if (pid)
 				seq_printf(s, "%d\n", pid);
 		}
 	}
-	rcu_read_unlock();
 }
 
 static int rdtgroup_tasks_show(struct kernfs_open_file *of,
-- 
2.25.1

Re: [PATCH 6/8] fs: convert process/thread iterators to for_each_*_rcu

[Oleg Nesterov]

On 09/04, Ye Liu wrote:
>
> @@ -1160,8 +1160,7 @@ static int __set_oom_adj(struct file *file, int oom_adj, bool legacy)
>  	if (mm) {
>  		struct task_struct *p;
>
> -		rcu_read_lock();
> -		for_each_process(p) {
> +		for_each_process_rcu(p) {
>  			if (same_thread_group(task, p))
>  				continue;

Hmm... I am not aware of for_each_process_rcu(), but looking at this
change I guess it includes something like scope_guard(rcu) ?

Perhaps makes sense, but the naming looks sligthly confusing to me.
I mean, to for_each_process_rcu() looks like (say) list_for_each_entry_rcu()
where _rcu has another meaning...

Oleg.

Re: [PATCH 6/8] fs: convert process/thread iterators to for_each_*_rcu

[Lorenzo Stoakes (ARM)]

Please cc everybody on every patch in the series :) it makes it incredible hard
for me to see context otherwise.

I can already see a comment I'd like to leave on another patch in the series but
it's a total pain for me go retrieve that to do it.

And I worry about acking one bit only to find out a horrible flaw in another
part :P

Can you please make sure to do that on any respin?...

On Fri, Sep 04, 2026 at 04:29:58PM +0800, Ye Liu wrote:
> From: Ye Liu <liuye@kylinos.cn>
>
> Replace the manual rcu_read_lock()/rcu_read_unlock() pairs combined
> with for_each_process() and for_each_process_thread() loops in fs/
> with the for_each_*_rcu() macros.

Probably worth mentioning that they hold the RCU lock in a scoped guard over the
operation.

>
> No functional change.
>
> Signed-off-by: Ye Liu <liuye@kylinos.cn>

In general it looks reasonable to me, but I wonder if you're correctly including
linux/cleanup.h to have the scope guard available...

Anyway can check that on respin with the right cc ;)

> ---
>  fs/proc/base.c        | 4 +---
>  fs/resctrl/rdtgroup.c | 8 ++------
>  2 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/fs/proc/base.c b/fs/proc/base.c
> index 6a39de424f62..da36ba73dc17 100644
> --- a/fs/proc/base.c
> +++ b/fs/proc/base.c
> @@ -1160,8 +1160,7 @@ static int __set_oom_adj(struct file *file, int oom_adj, bool legacy)

Side-note - I wonder if this really belongs in mm/oom_kill.c? Seems really odd
to have it here.

>  	if (mm) {
>  		struct task_struct *p;
>
> -		rcu_read_lock();
> -		for_each_process(p) {
> +		for_each_process_rcu(p) {
>  			if (same_thread_group(task, p))
>  				continue;
>
> @@ -1177,7 +1176,6 @@ static int __set_oom_adj(struct file *file, int oom_adj, bool legacy)
>  			}
>  			task_unlock(p);
>  		}
> -		rcu_read_unlock();
>  		mmdrop(mm);
>  	}
>  err_unlock:
> diff --git a/fs/resctrl/rdtgroup.c b/fs/resctrl/rdtgroup.c
> index 5dcbb0a964e8..3f96d21b84ab 100644
> --- a/fs/resctrl/rdtgroup.c
> +++ b/fs/resctrl/rdtgroup.c
> @@ -709,14 +709,12 @@ int rdtgroup_tasks_assigned(struct rdtgroup *r)
>
>  	lockdep_assert_held(&rdtgroup_mutex);
>
> -	rcu_read_lock();
> -	for_each_process_thread(p, t) {
> +	for_each_process_thread_rcu(p, t) {
>  		if (is_closid_match(t, r) || is_rmid_match(t, r)) {
>  			ret = 1;
>  			break;
>  		}
>  	}
> -	rcu_read_unlock();
>
>  	return ret;
>  }
> @@ -826,15 +824,13 @@ static void show_rdt_tasks(struct rdtgroup *r, struct seq_file *s)
>  	struct task_struct *p, *t;
>  	pid_t pid;
>
> -	rcu_read_lock();
> -	for_each_process_thread(p, t) {
> +	for_each_process_thread_rcu(p, t) {
>  		if (is_closid_match(t, r) || is_rmid_match(t, r)) {
>  			pid = task_pid_vnr(t);
>  			if (pid)
>  				seq_printf(s, "%d\n", pid);
>  		}
>  	}
> -	rcu_read_unlock();
>  }
>
>  static int rdtgroup_tasks_show(struct kernfs_open_file *of,
> --
> 2.25.1
>

--
Cheers, Lorenzo

Re: [PATCH 6/8] fs: convert process/thread iterators to for_each_*_rcu

[Michal Hocko]

On Fri 04-09-26 16:29:58, Ye Liu wrote:
> From: Ye Liu <liuye@kylinos.cn>
> 
> Replace the manual rcu_read_lock()/rcu_read_unlock() pairs combined
> with for_each_process() and for_each_process_thread() loops in fs/
> with the for_each_*_rcu() macros.
> 
> No functional change.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Ye Liu <liuye@kylinos.cn>

Acked-by: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>

> ---
>  fs/proc/base.c        | 4 +---
>  fs/resctrl/rdtgroup.c | 8 ++------
>  2 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/fs/proc/base.c b/fs/proc/base.c
> index 6a39de424f62..da36ba73dc17 100644
> --- a/fs/proc/base.c
> +++ b/fs/proc/base.c
> @@ -1160,8 +1160,7 @@ static int __set_oom_adj(struct file *file, int oom_adj, bool legacy)
>  	if (mm) {
>  		struct task_struct *p;
>  
> -		rcu_read_lock();
> -		for_each_process(p) {
> +		for_each_process_rcu(p) {
>  			if (same_thread_group(task, p))
>  				continue;
>  
> @@ -1177,7 +1176,6 @@ static int __set_oom_adj(struct file *file, int oom_adj, bool legacy)
>  			}
>  			task_unlock(p);
>  		}
> -		rcu_read_unlock();
>  		mmdrop(mm);
>  	}
>  err_unlock:
> diff --git a/fs/resctrl/rdtgroup.c b/fs/resctrl/rdtgroup.c
> index 5dcbb0a964e8..3f96d21b84ab 100644
> --- a/fs/resctrl/rdtgroup.c
> +++ b/fs/resctrl/rdtgroup.c
> @@ -709,14 +709,12 @@ int rdtgroup_tasks_assigned(struct rdtgroup *r)
>  
>  	lockdep_assert_held(&rdtgroup_mutex);
>  
> -	rcu_read_lock();
> -	for_each_process_thread(p, t) {
> +	for_each_process_thread_rcu(p, t) {
>  		if (is_closid_match(t, r) || is_rmid_match(t, r)) {
>  			ret = 1;
>  			break;
>  		}
>  	}
> -	rcu_read_unlock();
>  
>  	return ret;
>  }
> @@ -826,15 +824,13 @@ static void show_rdt_tasks(struct rdtgroup *r, struct seq_file *s)
>  	struct task_struct *p, *t;
>  	pid_t pid;
>  
> -	rcu_read_lock();
> -	for_each_process_thread(p, t) {
> +	for_each_process_thread_rcu(p, t) {
>  		if (is_closid_match(t, r) || is_rmid_match(t, r)) {
>  			pid = task_pid_vnr(t);
>  			if (pid)
>  				seq_printf(s, "%d\n", pid);
>  		}
>  	}
> -	rcu_read_unlock();
>  }
>  
>  static int rdtgroup_tasks_show(struct kernfs_open_file *of,
> -- 
> 2.25.1
> 

-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs

Re: [PATCH 6/8] fs: convert process/thread iterators to for_each_*_rcu

[Alexey Dobriyan]

On Fri, Sep 04, 2026 at 04:29:58PM +0800, Ye Liu wrote:
> --- a/fs/proc/base.c
> +++ b/fs/proc/base.c
> @@ -1160,8 +1160,7 @@ static int __set_oom_adj(struct file *file, int oom_adj, bool legacy)
>  	if (mm) {
>  		struct task_struct *p;
>  
> -		rcu_read_lock();
> -		for_each_process(p) {
> +		for_each_process_rcu(p) {
>  			if (same_thread_group(task, p))
>  				continue;
>  
> @@ -1177,7 +1176,6 @@ static int __set_oom_adj(struct file *file, int oom_adj, bool legacy)
>  			}
>  			task_unlock(p);
>  		}
> -		rcu_read_unlock();
>  		mmdrop(mm);
>  	}
>  err_unlock:

What's going on here?
Now it's RCU unlock after mmdrop().

These scoped guards kind of suck unless you allow infinite line length.

	A

Re: [PATCH 6/8] fs: convert process/thread iterators to for_each_*_rcu

[Lorenzo Stoakes (ARM)]

On Tue, Sep 08, 2026 at 07:45:15PM +0300, Alexey Dobriyan wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 04, 2026 at 04:29:58PM +0800, Ye Liu wrote:
> > --- a/fs/proc/base.c
> > +++ b/fs/proc/base.c
> > @@ -1160,8 +1160,7 @@ static int __set_oom_adj(struct file *file, int oom_adj, bool legacy)
> >  	if (mm) {
> >  		struct task_struct *p;
> >
> > -		rcu_read_lock();
> > -		for_each_process(p) {
> > +		for_each_process_rcu(p) {
> >  			if (same_thread_group(task, p))
> >  				continue;
> >
> > @@ -1177,7 +1176,6 @@ static int __set_oom_adj(struct file *file, int oom_adj, bool legacy)
> >  			}
> >  			task_unlock(p);
> >  		}
> > -		rcu_read_unlock();
> >  		mmdrop(mm);
> >  	}
> >  err_unlock:
>
> What's going on here?
> Now it's RCU unlock after mmdrop().

No it's not, scoped_guard() is scoped to the for_each_process_rcu() block which
ends before mmdrop(), i.e. the exact same scope as before.

That closing '}' is attached to the if (mm).

>
> These scoped guards kind of suck unless you allow infinite line length.
>
> 	A

--
Cheers, Lorenzo

Re: [PATCH 6/8] fs: convert process/thread iterators to for_each_*_rcu

[Oleg Nesterov]

On 09/08, Alexey Dobriyan wrote:
>
> On Fri, Sep 04, 2026 at 04:29:58PM +0800, Ye Liu wrote:
> > --- a/fs/proc/base.c
> > +++ b/fs/proc/base.c
> > @@ -1160,8 +1160,7 @@ static int __set_oom_adj(struct file *file, int oom_adj, bool legacy)
> >  	if (mm) {
> >  		struct task_struct *p;
> >
> > -		rcu_read_lock();
> > -		for_each_process(p) {
> > +		for_each_process_rcu(p) {
> >  			if (same_thread_group(task, p))
> >  				continue;
> >
> > @@ -1177,7 +1176,6 @@ static int __set_oom_adj(struct file *file, int oom_adj, bool legacy)
> >  			}
> >  			task_unlock(p);
> >  		}
> > -		rcu_read_unlock();
> >  		mmdrop(mm);
> >  	}
> >  err_unlock:
>
> What's going on here?
> Now it's RCU unlock after mmdrop().

Confused... Why do you think so?

I think mmdrop() is called after rcu_read_unlock(), with or without this change.

No?

Oleg.

Re: [PATCH 6/8] fs: convert process/thread iterators to for_each_*_rcu

[Alexey Dobriyan]

On Tue, Sep 08, 2026 at 06:10:17PM +0100, Lorenzo Stoakes (ARM) wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 08, 2026 at 07:45:15PM +0300, Alexey Dobriyan wrote:
> > On Fri, Sep 04, 2026 at 04:29:58PM +0800, Ye Liu wrote:
> > > --- a/fs/proc/base.c
> > > +++ b/fs/proc/base.c
> > > @@ -1160,8 +1160,7 @@ static int __set_oom_adj(struct file *file, int oom_adj, bool legacy)
> > >  	if (mm) {
> > >  		struct task_struct *p;
> > >
> > > -		rcu_read_lock();
> > > -		for_each_process(p) {
> > > +		for_each_process_rcu(p) {
> > >  			if (same_thread_group(task, p))
> > >  				continue;
> > >
> > > @@ -1177,7 +1176,6 @@ static int __set_oom_adj(struct file *file, int oom_adj, bool legacy)
> > >  			}
> > >  			task_unlock(p);
> > >  		}
> > > -		rcu_read_unlock();
> > >  		mmdrop(mm);
> > >  	}
> > >  err_unlock:
> >
> > What's going on here?
> > Now it's RCU unlock after mmdrop().
> 
> No it's not, scoped_guard() is scoped to the for_each_process_rcu() block which
> ends before mmdrop(), i.e. the exact same scope as before.
> 
> That closing '}' is attached to the if (mm).

OK.

I think naming (and macro) are misguided:
* _rcu means "use under RCU section opened elsewhere",
  this one is "I open and close RCU section myself".

* not every 2 lines should be combined into new interface.

Re: [PATCH 6/8] fs: convert process/thread iterators to for_each_*_rcu

[Lorenzo Stoakes (ARM)]

On Tue, Sep 08, 2026 at 08:26:54PM +0300, Alexey Dobriyan wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 08, 2026 at 06:10:17PM +0100, Lorenzo Stoakes (ARM) wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 08, 2026 at 07:45:15PM +0300, Alexey Dobriyan wrote:
> > > On Fri, Sep 04, 2026 at 04:29:58PM +0800, Ye Liu wrote:
> > > > --- a/fs/proc/base.c
> > > > +++ b/fs/proc/base.c
> > > > @@ -1160,8 +1160,7 @@ static int __set_oom_adj(struct file *file, int oom_adj, bool legacy)
> > > >  	if (mm) {
> > > >  		struct task_struct *p;
> > > >
> > > > -		rcu_read_lock();
> > > > -		for_each_process(p) {
> > > > +		for_each_process_rcu(p) {
> > > >  			if (same_thread_group(task, p))
> > > >  				continue;
> > > >
> > > > @@ -1177,7 +1176,6 @@ static int __set_oom_adj(struct file *file, int oom_adj, bool legacy)
> > > >  			}
> > > >  			task_unlock(p);
> > > >  		}
> > > > -		rcu_read_unlock();
> > > >  		mmdrop(mm);
> > > >  	}
> > > >  err_unlock:
> > >
> > > What's going on here?
> > > Now it's RCU unlock after mmdrop().
> >
> > No it's not, scoped_guard() is scoped to the for_each_process_rcu() block which
> > ends before mmdrop(), i.e. the exact same scope as before.
> >
> > That closing '}' is attached to the if (mm).
>
> OK.
>
> I think naming (and macro) are misguided:
> * _rcu means "use under RCU section opened elsewhere",
>   this one is "I open and close RCU section myself".

You're replying to a v1 of a series that has a v2 which changes the naming.

>
> * not every 2 lines should be combined into new interface.

Nobody is suggesting every 2 lines should be combined into a new interface.

They're suggesting that explicitly tying lock lifetime to block scope is a
really good idea.

And having debugged lots of locking issues, I agree.

Anyway the v2 is at:

https://lore.kernel.org/all/20260907081334.1152889-1-ye.liu@linux.dev/


--
Cheers, Lorenzo