From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
        id S932289AbdJJOP2 (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
        Tue, 10 Oct 2017 10:15:28 -0400
Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:51140 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com"
        rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
        id S932117AbdJJOP1 (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Tue, 10 Oct 2017 10:15:27 -0400
DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mx1.redhat.com 9FC207E427
Authentication-Results: ext-mx03.extmail.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com
Authentication-Results: ext-mx03.extmail.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com; spf=fail smtp.mailfrom=oleg@redhat.com
Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2017 16:15:23 +0200
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
To: Gargi Sharma <gs051095@gmail.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Rik van Riel <riel@surriel.com>,
        Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@lip6.fr>, mingo@kernel.org,
        pasha.tatashin@oracle.com, ktkhai@virtuozzo.com,
        "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@xmission.com>,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 1/2] pid: Replace pid bitmap implementation with IDR
 API
Message-ID: <20171010141523.GA16542@redhat.com>
References: <1507583624-22146-1-git-send-email-gs051095@gmail.com>
 <1507583624-22146-2-git-send-email-gs051095@gmail.com>
 <20171009161737.ea8c62441cc12dfd909ee0b2@linux-foundation.org>
 <20171010115034.GA28545@redhat.com>
 <CAOCi2DFV_USU=m+vHp0=JHiwcZf3sUT=jf5+ktMsr_cxn9nQ=A@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAOCi2DFV_USU=m+vHp0=JHiwcZf3sUT=jf5+ktMsr_cxn9nQ=A@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30)
X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.5.16 (mx1.redhat.com [10.5.110.27]); Tue, 10 Oct 2017 14:15:27 +0000 (UTC)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On 10/10, Gargi Sharma wrote:
>
> On Tue, Oct 10, 2017 at 12:50 PM, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com> wrote:
> > On 10/09, Andrew Morton wrote:
> >>
> >> Especially here.  I don't think pidmap_lock is held.  Is that IDR
> >> iteration safe?
> >
> > Yes, this doesn't look right, we need rcu_read_lock() or pidmap_lock.
> >
> > And, we also need rcu_read_lock() for another reason, to protect "struct pid".
>
> Ah, I missed this. From what I understood idr_for_each_entry_continue
> should be safe

Without rcu? Why?

> because calls idr_get_next which in turn calls
> radix_tree_iter_find to find the next populated entry in the idr.

and then it does rcu_dereference_raw(*slot). Without rcu or pidmap this
slot can got away if we race with free_pid().

> If
> the pid that you are looking up the task for is deleted, task will get
> a NULL from pid_task and no signal to kill will be sent.

pid->tasks is protected by tasklist_lock, but the pid itself can go away
without rcu lock.

So I think you need to take rcu_read_lock() right after tasklist_lock.

> > Gargi, I suggested to use idr_for_each_entry_continue(), but now I am wondering
> > if we should use idr_for_each() instead. IIUC this would be a bit faster? Not
> > that I think this is really important...
>
> I can run benchmarks with idr_for_each to see how much speed up is
> achieved and then we can go with whatever we think is better. How does
> that sounds?

Up to you ;) I am fine either way.

Oleg.