lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2010]   [Apr]   [12]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: mmotm 2010-04-05 - another RCU whinge (not network this time)
On 04/09, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
>
> > Oleg, looks like proc-make-collect_sigign_sigcatch-rcu-safe.patch is the
> > offender here, it added the line that causes the whinge.
>
> If collect_sigign_sigcatch() is OK to call by updaters as well as
> readers, we need something like:
>
> struct sighand_struct *sighand;
>
> sighand = rcu_dereference_check(p->sighand,
> rcu_read_lock_held() ||
> lockdep_is_held(&???));
>
> Where the "???" is replaced with whichever of the two locks is protecting
> updates. My guess would be the sighand lock, but I would not rely on
> my guesses in this case. ;-)

Yes, it should be p->sighand->siglock.

Actually, I was going to change another caller, do_task_stat(), to call
collect_sigign_sigcatch() without ->siglock too, but now I am not sure
when/if this will happen.

OK, thanks, I'll send the patch to make rcu_dereference_check() happy.




While we are here... __exit_signal() does

sighand = rcu_dereference_check(tsk->sighand,
rcu_read_lock_held() ||
lockdep_tasklist_lock_is_held());

What is the point? We know that the single caller must hold tasklist,
otherwise everything is broken. Perhaps it would be better to
use rcu_dereference_raw() ?

In fact, I don't really understand why __exit_signal() needs
rcu_dereference() at all.

Oleg.



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2010-04-12 20:37    [W:0.072 / U:1.012 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site