Re: [PATCH 2/3] make kthread_create() more scalable

[Eric W. Biederman]

Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:

> On Fri, 13 Apr 2007 17:02:01 +0400
> Oleg Nesterov <oleg@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> If kernel_thread(kthread) succeeds, kthread() can not fail on its path to
>> complete(&create->started) + schedule(). After that it can't be woken because
>> nobody can see the new task yet. This means:
>> 
>> 	- we don't need tasklist_lock for find_task_by_pid().
>> 
>> 	- create_kthread() doesn't need to wait for create->started. Instead,
>> 	  kthread_create() first waits for create->created to get the result of
>> 	  kernel_thread(), then waits for create->started to synchronize with
>> 	  kthread().
>
> Why don't we need tasklist_lock for find_task_by_pid()?  I'd have though that
> we'd at least need rcu_read_lock(), and I'm not sure that the implicit
> understanding of pid-management internals here is a great idea.

We need rcu_read_lock().  Or else something could permute the pid hash table
and get us into trouble.

Eric





-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/