Re: [PATCH 2/3] ftrace: use struct pid

[Steven Rostedt]

On Thu, 4 Dec 2008, Dave Hansen wrote:

> On Thu, 2008-12-04 at 04:56 -0800, Dave Hansen wrote:
> > On Thu, 2008-12-04 at 04:42 -0800, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> > > 
> > > > +static void clear_ftrace_pid_task(struct pid **pid)
> > > > +{
> > > > +     struct task_struct *p;
> > > > +
> > >         rcu_read_lock();
> > > 
> > > > +     do_each_pid_task(*pid, PIDTYPE_PID, p) {
> > > > +             clear_tsk_trace_trace(p);
> > > > +     } while_each_pid_task(*pid, PIDTYPE_PID, p);
> > >         rcu_read_unlock()
> > > 
> > > > +     put_pid(*pid);
> > > > +
> > > > +     *pid = NULL;
> > > > +}
> > 
> > Could we get away with sticking the rcu_read_{un}lock() inside those
> > macros?  Those are going to get used in pretty high level code and we're
> > allowed to nest rcu_read_lock().  No danger of deadlocks or lock
> > inversions.
> 
> Why don't any of the other users of do_each_pid_task() use
> rcu_read_lock()?  They all seem to be under read_lock(&tasklist_lock)
> (except one is under a write lock of the same).

Well, if the pid hashes are traversal safe (rcu style), then we only worry 
about a node or task being freed. I'm assuming that the node is protected 
via RCU as tasks are, then using only rcu_read_lock should be sufficient.

-- Steve

--
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/