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 02:04:09PM +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>
> > For example, do/while_each_thread() always
> > sees at least one task, while for_each_thread() can do nothing if
> > the whole thread group has died.
>
> Would it be safe to have for_each_thread_continue() instead?

Yes, and no.

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.

But no, _continue() can't help if the whole thread group has died,
we simply can not continue.

Note also that _continue() can't be safely used lockless, unless
you verify pid_alive() or something similar.

And,

> Yeah if the conversion needs careful audit, it makes sense to switch incrementally.

Yes. For example the case above. If someone does

	do
		do_something(t);
	while_each_thread(g, t);

we should check that it can tolerate the case when do_something()
won't be called at all, or ensure that this is not possible.

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/