From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, rostedt@goodmis.org,
bigeasy@linutronix.de, tglx@linutronix.de
Subject: Re: [PATCH] signal: Simplify __lock_task_sighand()
Date: Mon, 5 May 2014 13:56:17 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20140505205616.GN8754@linux.vnet.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20140505185308.GA17507@redhat.com>
On Mon, May 05, 2014 at 08:53:08PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 05/05, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> >
> > On 05/05, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > >
> > > Does the patch below cover it?
> >
> > Yes, thanks.
> >
> > Acked-by: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
>
> Yes, but please consider the cleanup below, on top of your change.
>
> This is subjective of course, but imho the code looks better without
> the extra unlock/restore inside the loop.
My only concern is that this might degrade real-time latency, but that
mmight just be my paranoia speaking. Adding Steven, Sebastian, and
Thomas on CC for their thoughts.
Other than that possible issue, I do agree that your change makes the
code simpler.
Thanx, Paul
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Subject: [PATCH] signal: Simplify __lock_task_sighand()
>
> __lock_task_sighand() does local_irq_save() to prevent the potential
> deadlock, we can use preempt_disable() with the same effect. And in
> this case we can do preempt_disable/enable + rcu_read_lock/unlock only
> once outside of the main loop and simplify the code. Also shaves 112
> bytes from signal.o.
>
> Signed-off-by: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
> ---
> kernel/signal.c | 31 +++++++++++++------------------
> 1 files changed, 13 insertions(+), 18 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/signal.c b/kernel/signal.c
> index 4368370..03a0fd4 100644
> --- a/kernel/signal.c
> +++ b/kernel/signal.c
> @@ -1260,30 +1260,25 @@ struct sighand_struct *__lock_task_sighand(struct task_struct *tsk,
> unsigned long *flags)
> {
> struct sighand_struct *sighand;
> -
> + /*
> + * We are going to do rcu_read_unlock() under spin_lock_irqsave().
> + * Make sure we can not be preempted after rcu_read_unlock(), see
> + * rcu_read_unlock comment header for details.
> + */
> + preempt_disable();
> + rcu_read_lock();
> for (;;) {
> - /*
> - * Disable interrupts early to avoid deadlocks.
> - * See rcu_read_unlock comment header for details.
> - */
> - local_irq_save(*flags);
> - rcu_read_lock();
> sighand = rcu_dereference(tsk->sighand);
> - if (unlikely(sighand == NULL)) {
> - rcu_read_unlock();
> - local_irq_restore(*flags);
> + if (unlikely(sighand == NULL))
> break;
> - }
>
> - spin_lock(&sighand->siglock);
> - if (likely(sighand == tsk->sighand)) {
> - rcu_read_unlock();
> + spin_lock_irqsave(&sighand->siglock, *flags);
> + if (likely(sighand == tsk->sighand))
> break;
> - }
> - spin_unlock(&sighand->siglock);
> - rcu_read_unlock();
> - local_irq_restore(*flags);
> + spin_unlock_irqrestore(&sighand->siglock, *flags);
> }
> + rcu_read_unlock();
> + preempt_enable();
>
> return sighand;
> }
> --
> 1.5.5.1
>
>
prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-05-05 20:56 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-05-03 16:11 lock_task_sighand() && rcu_boost() Oleg Nesterov
2014-05-04 18:01 ` Paul E. McKenney
2014-05-04 19:17 ` Oleg Nesterov
2014-05-04 22:38 ` Paul E. McKenney
2014-05-05 13:26 ` Oleg Nesterov
2014-05-05 15:26 ` Paul E. McKenney
2014-05-05 16:47 ` Oleg Nesterov
2014-05-05 18:53 ` [PATCH] signal: Simplify __lock_task_sighand() Oleg Nesterov
2014-05-05 19:55 ` Oleg Nesterov
2014-05-05 20:56 ` Paul E. McKenney [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=20140505205616.GN8754@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--to=paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=bigeasy@linutronix.de \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=oleg@redhat.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
/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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).