Re: [PATCH v2 1/4] introduce for_each_thread() to replace thebuggy while_each_thread()

[Oleg Nesterov]

On 12/04, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
>
> On Wed, Dec 04, 2013 at 02:49:17PM +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> >
> > Yes, perhaps we will need for_each_thread_continue(). I am not sure
> > yet. And note that, say, check_hung_uninterruptible_tasks() already
> > does _continue if fact, although it is still not clear to me if we
> > actually need this helper.
>
> So that's one of the possible users. _continue() can make sense if the
> reader can easily cope with missing a few threads from time to time, which
> is the case of the hung task detector.

Yes, but again it is not clear if we need the new helper.

For example. Note that you can simply do something like:

	// p can't go away

	rcu_read_lock();
	for_each_thread(p, t) {
		do_something(t);

		if (need_to_sleep()) {
			get_task_struct(t);
			rcu_read_unlock();

			schedule_timeout_interruptible(...);

			rcu_read_lock();
			put_task_struct();
			if (!pid_alive(t))
				break;
		}
	}
	rcu_read_unlock();

If you rewrite this code using for_each_thread_continue (which is just
list_for_each_entry_continue_rcu) the code will look more complex.

> > Note also that _continue() can't be safely used lockless, unless
> > you verify pid_alive() or something similar.
>
> Hmm, due to concurrent list_del()?
>
> Right, tsk->thread_list.next could point to junk after a list_del(), say if the next
> entry has been freed.

Yes. The same problem which while_each_thread() currently has (I mean,
even ignoring the fact it is itself buggy).

Oleg.

--
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/