IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO GET AN ACCOUNT, please write an
email to Administrator. User accounts are meant only to access repo
and report issues and/or generate pull requests.
This is a purpose-specific Git hosting for
BaseALT
projects. Thank you for your understanding!
Только зарегистрированные пользователи имеют доступ к сервису!
Для получения аккаунта, обратитесь к администратору.
Change task_work_cancel() to use lockless_dereference(), this is what
the code really wants but we didn't have this helper when it was
written.
Also add the fast-path task->task_works == NULL check, in the likely
case this task has no pending works and we can avoid
spin_lock(task->pi_lock).
While at it, change other users of ACCESS_ONCE() to use READ_ONCE().
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20160610150042.GA13868@redhat.com
Signed-off-by: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
Cc: Andrea Parri <parri.andrea@gmail.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
With the modified semantics of spin_unlock_wait() a number of
explicit barriers can be removed. Also update the comment for the
do_exit() usecase, as that was somewhat stale/obscure.
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
In commit f341861fb0 ("task_work: add a scheduling point in
task_work_run()") I fixed a latency problem adding a cond_resched()
call.
Later, commit ac3d0da8f3 added yet another loop to reverse a list,
bringing back the latency spike :
I've seen in some cases this loop taking 275 ms, if for example a
process with 2,000,000 files is killed.
We could add yet another cond_resched() in the reverse loop, or we
can simply remove the reversal, as I do not think anything
would depend on order of task_work_add() submitted works.
Fixes: ac3d0da8f3 ("task_work: Make task_work_add() lockless")
Signed-off-by: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>
Reported-by: Maciej Żenczykowski <maze@google.com>
Acked-by: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
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 <oleg@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
Cc: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20120826191211.GA4228@redhat.com
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
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 <peterz@infradead.org>
Signed-off-by: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
Cc: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20120826191209.GA4221@redhat.com
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
It seems commit 4a9d4b024a ("switch fput to task_work_add") re-
introduced the problem addressed in 944be0b224 ("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 <edumazet@google.com>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
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 <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
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 <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
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 <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
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 <oleg@redhat.com>
Acked-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Cc: Richard Kuo <rkuo@codeaurora.org>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Alexander Gordeev <agordeev@redhat.com>
Cc: Chris Zankel <chris@zankel.net>
Cc: David Smith <dsmith@redhat.com>
Cc: "Frank Ch. Eigler" <fche@redhat.com>
Cc: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org>
Cc: Larry Woodman <lwoodman@redhat.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
