public inbox for linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
To: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@xmission.com>
Cc: Jiri Slaby <jirislaby@gmail.com>,
	kenchen@google.com,
	Linux kernel mailing list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: broken do_each_pid_{thread,task}
Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2008 11:47:16 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20081215104716.GB11106@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <m1wse29roy.fsf@frodo.ebiederm.org>

On 12/14, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>
> Jiri Slaby <jirislaby@gmail.com> writes:
> >
> > I'm getting
> > `if (type == PIDTYPE_PID)' is unreachable
> > warning from kernel/exit.c. The preprocessed code looks like:
> > do {
> >          struct hlist_node *pos___;
> >          if (pgrp != ((void *)0))
> >                  for (LIST ITERATION) {
> >                          {
> >                           if (!((p->state & 4) != 0))
> >                            continue;
> >                           retval = 1;
> >                           break;
> >                          }
> >                          if (PIDTYPE_PGID == PIDTYPE_PID)
> >                                  break;
> >                  }
> > } while (0);
> > and it's obviously wrong.
>
> Actually the test:
> >                          if (PIDTYPE_PGID == PIDTYPE_PID)
> >                                  break;
> Is technically ok.  The compiler should optimize it out instead of warning.
> Although seeing the unexpected corner case it gets us into I think it would
> be good to reconsider this test.

Agreed. This check uglifies the code to fix the theoretical problem.

But, actually do_each_pid_task() is a bit ugly even without this check.
Lets forget about this check for a moment.

Firstly, all hlist_for_each_entry() helpers should be "fixed", we don't
need the second argument. For example, hlist_for_each_entry_rcu() could
be

	#define hlist_for_each_entry_rcu(pos, head, member)			\
		for (pos = (void*)(head)->first; rcu_dereference(pos) && ({	\
			prefetch(((struct hlist_node*)pos)->next);		\
			pos = hlist_entry((void*)pos, typeof(*pos), member); 1;	\
		     }); pos = (void*)(pos)->member.next)

So we can define

	#define for_each_pid_task(pid, type, task)
		for (task = pid ? (void*)((pid)->tasks + type)->first : NULL;			\
			rcu_dereference(task) && ({						\
			prefetch(((struct hlist_node*)task)->next);				\
			task = hlist_entry((void*)task, typeof(*task), pids[type].node); 1;	\
		     }); task = (void*)(task)->pids[type].node.next)

Which can be used just

	for_each_pid_task(pid, type, task)
		do_something(task);

Not that I think it is worth to do, though ;)

We can even restore the ugly special case for PIDTYPE_PID:

	#define for_each_pid_task(pid, type, task)
		for (task = pid ? (void*)((pid)->tasks + type)->first : NULL;			\
			rcu_dereference(task) && ({						\
			prefetch(((struct hlist_node*)task)->next);				\
			task = hlist_entry((void*)task, typeof(*task), pids[type].node); 1; })	\
		     task = (type != PIDTYPE_PID) ? (void*)(task)->pids[type].node.next : NULL)


> > For do_each_pid_thread(), even this code snippet from fs/ioprio.c is broken
> > due to double do {} while expansion:
> > do_each_pid_thread(pgrp, PIDTYPE_PGID, p) {
> >   ret = set_task_ioprio(p, ioprio);
> >   if (ret)
> >     break;
> > } while_each_pid_thread(pgrp, PIDTYPE_PGID, p);
> >
> > Any idea how to get rid of this issue?
>
> The double loop there is certainly an issue.  I'm not quite convinced that
> the error handling is correct even with the break statement.  But the
> break statement was written when the code was just a single loop, so the
> behavior is definitely not what we intended.

Yes,

> With respect to error handling and IO priorities can we fix the error handling
> by doing what we do when we send a signal to a process group?  That is note
> that there was an error, finish processing all of the other processes and then
> return the error?

Personally, I think you are right. But then we should change IOPRIO_WHO_USER
accordingly, imho.

Oleg.


  reply	other threads:[~2008-12-15 10:49 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2008-12-14 21:59 broken do_each_pid_{thread,task} Jiri Slaby
2008-12-15  1:02 ` Eric W. Biederman
2008-12-15 10:47   ` Oleg Nesterov [this message]
2008-12-15 17:09     ` Oleg Nesterov
2009-02-24 13:22       ` Jiri Slaby
2009-02-24 15:49         ` Oleg Nesterov
2009-02-24 16:21           ` Jiri Slaby
2009-02-24 21:49             ` [RFC, PATCH] introduce pid_for_each_task() to replace do_each_pid_task() Oleg Nesterov
2008-12-15 10:24 ` broken do_each_pid_{thread,task} Oleg Nesterov
2008-12-15 10:50   ` Jiri Slaby
2008-12-15 11:02     ` Oleg Nesterov
2008-12-15 11:33       ` Jiri Slaby
2008-12-15 11:51         ` Oleg Nesterov
2009-10-12 10:55           ` 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=20081215104716.GB11106@redhat.com \
    --to=oleg@redhat.com \
    --cc=ebiederm@xmission.com \
    --cc=jirislaby@gmail.com \
    --cc=kenchen@google.com \
    --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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox