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

[Andrew Morton]

On Fri, 13 Apr 2007 15:51:29 -0600
ebiederm@xxxxxxxxxxxx (Eric W. Biederman) wrote:

> 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.
> 

OK, I fixed that up.

The next patch (make-kthread_stop-scalable) removes the find_task_by_pid()
anyway.

Our kthread creation performance will be pretty poor anyway, due to the
need to do two (or more?) context switches.  If we ever need
super-low-latency kernel thread creation (eg, on-demand threads for AIO)
then that code would need to go direct to kernel_thread(), I guess.

-
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/