From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org>
Cc: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@tv-sign.ru>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] PF_DEAD: cleanup usage
Date: Sun, 27 Nov 2005 12:55:36 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20051127115536.GA22229@elte.hu> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0511250950450.13959@g5.osdl.org>
* Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org> wrote:
> > > I think it is better to set EXIT_DEAD in do_exit(), along with PF_DEAD
> > > flag.
> >
> > nice idea - your patch looks good to me.
>
> I'm not entirely convinced.
>
> The thing is, We used to have DEAD in the task state flags, ie
> TASK_ZOMBIE was it.
>
> We started using PF_DEAD in 2003 with this commit message:
>
> Author: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@home.osdl.org> 2003-10-26 03:16:23
>
> Add a sticky "PF_DEAD" task flag to keep track of dead processes.
>
> Use this to simplify 'finish_task_switch', but perhaps more
> importantly we can use this to track down why some processes
> seem to sometimes not die properly even after having been
> marked as ZOMBIE. The "task->state" flags are too fluid to
> allow that well.
>
> ie the PF_DEAD flag was never really about is _needing_ it: it was all
> about being able to safely check it _without_ having to rely on
> task->state.
but this was in times when we did alot of nontrivial operations after we
marked a task "dead". Today we do this:
/* PF_DEAD causes final put_task_struct after we schedule. */
preempt_disable();
BUG_ON(tsk->flags & PF_DEAD);
tsk->flags |= PF_DEAD;
schedule();
BUG();
(i introduced the above changes to make more of the exit path
preemptable.)
PF_DEAD has zero relevance by today, and Oleg's patches are perfectly
correct and dont add the kind of risk that they'd have meant in 2003.
> So putting it back into task->state is not wrong per se, but it kind
> of misses the point of why it was somewhere else in the first place
> (or rather, why it was there in the _second_ place, since it was in
> task->state in the first place and got moved out of there).
yeah, PF_DEAD had its purpose back when we first marked a task dead,
then we did the release_task(). We used to have problems with
proc_pid_flush() which could sleep, which would lose the TASK_ZOMBIE or
TASK_DEAD flag and we'd come back from the 'final' schedule().
today that's impossible, due to the code above - we only mark it PF_DEAD
straight before going into the final schedule().
Ingo
prev parent reply other threads:[~2005-11-27 11:55 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2005-11-24 16:02 [PATCH 1/2] PF_DEAD: cleanup usage Oleg Nesterov
2005-11-25 5:12 ` Ingo Molnar
2005-11-25 18:01 ` Linus Torvalds
2005-11-26 10:46 ` Oleg Nesterov
2005-11-26 17:55 ` Linus Torvalds
2005-11-26 19:21 ` Oleg Nesterov
2005-11-26 18:47 ` Linus Torvalds
2005-11-27 12:18 ` Ingo Molnar
2005-11-27 13:02 ` Oleg Nesterov
2005-11-27 11:55 ` Ingo Molnar [this message]
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=20051127115536.GA22229@elte.hu \
--to=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=akpm@osdl.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=oleg@tv-sign.ru \
--cc=torvalds@osdl.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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox