13 Sep, 2012
2 commits
-
ed3e694d "move exit_task_work() past exit_files() et.al" destroyed
the add/exit synchronization we had, the caller itself should ensure
task_work_add() can't race with the exiting task.However, this is not convenient/simple, and the only user which tries
to do this is buggy (see the next patch). Unless the task is current,
there is simply no way to do this in general.Change exit_task_work()->task_work_run() to use the dummy "work_exited"
entry to let task_work_add() know it should fail.Signed-off-by: Oleg Nesterov
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra
Cc: Al Viro
Cc: Linus Torvalds
Cc: Andrew Morton
Cc: Thomas Gleixner
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20120826191211.GA4228@redhat.com
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar -
Change task_work's to use llist-like code to avoid pi_lock
in task_work_add(), this makes it useable under rq->lock.task_work_cancel() and task_work_run() still use pi_lock
to synchronize with each other.(This is in preparation for a deadlock fix.)
Suggested-by: Peter Zijlstra
Signed-off-by: Oleg Nesterov
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra
Cc: Al Viro
Cc: Linus Torvalds
Cc: Andrew Morton
Cc: Thomas Gleixner
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20120826191209.GA4221@redhat.com
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar
22 Aug, 2012
1 commit
-
It seems commit 4a9d4b024a31 ("switch fput to task_work_add") re-
introduced the problem addressed in 944be0b22472 ("close_files(): add
scheduling point")If a server process with a lot of files (say 2 million tcp sockets) is
killed, we can spend a lot of time in task_work_run() and trigger a soft
lockup.Signed-off-by: Eric Dumazet
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds
23 Jul, 2012
4 commits
-
It doesn't matter on normal return to userland path (we'll recheck the
NOTIFY_RESUME flag anyway), but in case of exit_task_work() we'll
need that as soon as we get callbacks capable of triggering more
task_work_add().Signed-off-by: Al Viro
-
... and get rid of PF_EXITING check in task_work_add().
Signed-off-by: Al Viro
-
task_work and rcu_head are identical now; merge them (calling the result
struct callback_head, rcu_head #define'd to it), kill separate allocation
in security/keys since we can just use cred->rcu now.Signed-off-by: Al Viro
-
layout based on Oleg's suggestion; single-linked list,
task->task_works points to the last element, forward pointer
from said last element points to head. I'd still prefer
much more regular scheme with two pointers in task_work,
but...Signed-off-by: Al Viro
24 May, 2012
1 commit
-
Provide a simple mechanism that allows running code in the (nonatomic)
context of the arbitrary task.The caller does task_work_add(task, task_work) and this task executes
task_work->func() either from do_notify_resume() or from do_exit(). The
callback can rely on PF_EXITING to detect the latter case."struct task_work" can be embedded in another struct, still it has "void
*data" to handle the most common/simple case.This allows us to kill the ->replacement_session_keyring hack, and
potentially this can have more users.Performance-wise, this adds 2 "unlikely(!hlist_empty())" checks into
tracehook_notify_resume() and do_exit(). But at the same time we can
remove the "replacement_session_keyring != NULL" checks from
arch/*/signal.c and exit_creds().Note: task_work_add/task_work_run abuses ->pi_lock. This is only because
this lock is already used by lookup_pi_state() to synchronize with
do_exit() setting PF_EXITING. Fortunately the scope of this lock in
task_work.c is really tiny, and the code is unlikely anyway.Signed-off-by: Oleg Nesterov
Acked-by: David Howells
Cc: Thomas Gleixner
Cc: Richard Kuo
Cc: Linus Torvalds
Cc: Alexander Gordeev
Cc: Chris Zankel
Cc: David Smith
Cc: "Frank Ch. Eigler"
Cc: Geert Uytterhoeven
Cc: Larry Woodman
Cc: Peter Zijlstra
Cc: Tejun Heo
Cc: Ingo Molnar
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton
Signed-off-by: Al Viro