On Mon, Oct 30, 2017 at 07:51:42PM +1100, Balbir Singh wrote: > On Sat, Oct 28, 2017 at 4:52 AM, Mike Rapoport <rppt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > There are several functions that do find_task_by_vpid() followed by > > get_task_struct(). We can use a helper function instead. > > > > Signed-off-by: Mike Rapoport <rppt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > --- > > I did a quick grep and found other similar patterns in (reordered the file list a bit) > kernel/events/core.c, > arch/x86/kernel/cpu/intel_rdt_rdtgroup.c, > mm/mempolicy.c, Those and mm/migrate.c indeed have a similar pattern, but they all do task = pid ? find_task_by_vpid(pid) : current; And I don't see an elegant way to use find_get_task_by_vpid() in this case. > kernel/kcmp.c, kcmp gets both tasks between rcu_read_lock/unlock and I think it's better to keep it this way. > kernel/sys.c, There is no get_task_struct() after find_task_by_vpid(), unless I've missed something > kernel/time/posix-cpu-timers.c, Here the task is selected with more complex logic than just find_task_by_vpid() > mm/process_vm_access.c, Converted in the patch > security/yama/yama_lsm.c, > arch/ia64/kernel/perfmon.c I've missed these two, indeed. The arch/ia64/kernel/perfmon.c even still uses read_lock(&tasklist) rather than rcu_read_lock()... > Balbir Singh. > -- Sincerely yours, Mike. -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>
