On Wed, Feb 12, 2020 at 1:48 PM Eric W. Biederman <ebiederm@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> The good news is proc_flush_task isn't exactly called from process exit.
> proc_flush_task is called during zombie clean up. AKA release_task.
Yeah, that at least avoids some of the nasty locking while dying debug problems.
But the one I was more worried about was actually the lock contention
issue with lots of processes. The lock is basically a single global
lock in many situations - yes, it's technically per-ns, but in a lot
of cases you really only have one namespace anyway.
And we've had problems with global locks in this area before, notably
the one you call out:
> Further after proc_flush_task does it's thing the code goes
> and does "write_lock_irq(&task_list_lock);"
Yeah, so it's not introducing a new issue, but it is potentially
making something we already know is bad even worse.
> What would be downside of having a mutex for a list of proc superblocks?
> A mutex that is taken for both reading and writing the list.
That's what the original patch actually was, and I was hoping we could
avoid that thing.
An rwsem would be possibly better, since most cases by far are likely
about reading.
And yes, I'm very aware of the task_list_lock, but it's literally why
I don't want to make a new one.
I'm _hoping_ we can some day come up with something better than task_list_lock.
Linus
