On Thu, Aug 20, 2020 at 01:39:02PM -0700, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
> kmemleak_scan() currently relies on the big tasklist_lock
> hammer to stabilize iterating through the tasklist. Instead,
> this patch proposes simply using rcu along with the rcu-safe
> for_each_process_thread flavor (without changi
On 08/20, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
>
> @@ -1471,15 +1471,15 @@ static void kmemleak_scan(void)
> if (kmemleak_stack_scan) {
> struct task_struct *p, *g;
>
> - read_lock(&tasklist_lock);
> - do_each_thread(g, p) {
> + rcu_read_lock();
> +
On Thu, Aug 20, 2020 at 06:27:50PM -0700, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
> On Thu, 20 Aug 2020, Qian Cai wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Aug 20, 2020 at 01:39:02PM -0700, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
> > > kmemleak_scan() currently relies on the big tasklist_lock
> > > hammer to stabilize iterating through the tasklist. I
On Thu, 20 Aug 2020, Qian Cai wrote:
On Thu, Aug 20, 2020 at 01:39:02PM -0700, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
kmemleak_scan() currently relies on the big tasklist_lock
hammer to stabilize iterating through the tasklist. Instead,
this patch proposes simply using rcu along with the rcu-safe
for_each_proc
On Thu, Aug 20, 2020 at 01:39:02PM -0700, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
> kmemleak_scan() currently relies on the big tasklist_lock
> hammer to stabilize iterating through the tasklist. Instead,
> this patch proposes simply using rcu along with the rcu-safe
> for_each_process_thread flavor (without changi
kmemleak_scan() currently relies on the big tasklist_lock
hammer to stabilize iterating through the tasklist. Instead,
this patch proposes simply using rcu along with the rcu-safe
for_each_process_thread flavor (without changing scan semantics),
which doesn't make use of next_thread/p->thread_group
6 matches
Mail list logo