On Thu, 2008-12-04 at 04:56 -0800, Dave Hansen wrote:
> On Thu, 2008-12-04 at 04:42 -0800, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> >
> > > +static void clear_ftrace_pid_task(struct pid **pid)
> > > +{
> > > + struct task_struct *p;
> > > +
> > rcu_read_lock();
> >
> > > + do_each_pid_task(*pid, PIDTYPE_PID, p) {
> > > + clear_tsk_trace_trace(p);
> > > + } while_each_pid_task(*pid, PIDTYPE_PID, p);
> > rcu_read_unlock()
> >
> > > + put_pid(*pid);
> > > +
> > > + *pid = NULL;
> > > +}
>
> Could we get away with sticking the rcu_read_{un}lock() inside those
> macros? Those are going to get used in pretty high level code and we're
> allowed to nest rcu_read_lock(). No danger of deadlocks or lock
> inversions.
Why don't any of the other users of do_each_pid_task() use
rcu_read_lock()? They all seem to be under read_lock(&tasklist_lock)
(except one is under a write lock of the same).
-- Dave
_______________________________________________
Containers mailing list
Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
