在 2023/8/21 12:34, Matthew Wilcox 写道:
> On Mon, Aug 21, 2023 at 10:25:34AM +0800, Tong Tiangen wrote:
>> +++ b/mm/memory-failure.c
>> @@ -546,24 +546,26 @@ static void kill_procs(struct list_head *to_kill, int forcekill, bool fail,
>> * Find a dedicated thread which is supposed to handle SIGBUS(BUS_MCEERR_AO)
>> * on behalf of the thread group. Return task_struct of the (first found)
>> * dedicated thread if found, and return NULL otherwise.
>> - *
>> - * We already hold read_lock(&tasklist_lock) in the caller, so we don't
>> - * have to call rcu_read_lock/unlock() in this function.
>> */
>> static struct task_struct *find_early_kill_thread(struct task_struct *tsk)
>> {
>> struct task_struct *t;
>>
>> + rcu_read_lock();
>> for_each_thread(tsk, t) {
>> if (t->flags & PF_MCE_PROCESS) {
>> if (t->flags & PF_MCE_EARLY)
>> - return t;
>> + goto found;
>> } else {
>> if (sysctl_memory_failure_early_kill)
>> - return t;
>> + goto found;
>> }
>> }
>> - return NULL;
>> +
>> + t = NULL;
>> +found:
>> + rcu_read_unlock();
>> + return t;
>> }
>
> I don't understand why you need to modify find_early_kill_thread() at
> all. It's still true that the caller holds _a_ lock protecting it; the
> comment needs to be updated to reflect that it might be the RCU lock
> or the tasklist_lock (or did you change all callers?), but there's no
> need for this function to take the RCU lock itself, afaics?
>
> .
I've checked that all the paths that call find_early_kill_thread()
already hold the rcu lock, and there's really no need to hold the rcu
lock here.
In the next patch version, here only the comments are modified.
Thanks,
Tong.