On 08/18, Jiri Slaby wrote:
>
> On 17. 08. 23, 18:37, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> >Eric has pointed out that we still have 3 users of do_each_thread().
> >Change them to use for_each_process_thread() and kill this helper.
>
> Is there any change in behavior?
No.
Well, there is a subtle change, after do_each_thread/while_each_thread
g == t == &init_task, while after for_each_process_thread() they both
point to nowhere, but this doesn't matter.
> Why is for_each_process_thread() better than do_each_thread()?
Say, for_each_process_thread() is rcu safe, do_each_thread() is not.
And certainly
for_each_process_thread(p, t) {
do_something(p, t);
}
looks better than
do_each_thread(p, t) {
do_something(p, t);
} while_each_thread(p, t);
And again, there are only 3 users of this awkward helper left.
It should have been killed years ago and in fact I thought it
had already been killed. It uses while_each_thread() which needs
some changes.
Oleg.
|