Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20181230163143.21030-1-ap420073@gmail.com> <20190105.141021.1299321405902891635.davem@davemloft.net>
In-Reply-To: <20190105.141021.1299321405902891635.davem@davemloft.net>
From:   Taehee Yoo <ap420073@gmail.com>
Date:   Sun, 6 Jan 2019 14:34:52 +0900
Message-ID: <CAMArcTUGujArU1L8L=n32yKbT+MwuUEm6S8C=am_EGQ5GG3jQA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net 1/4] umh: add exit routine for UMH process
To:     David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
Cc:     Netdev <netdev@vger.kernel.org>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>, ast@kernel.org,
        mcgrof@kernel.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Sun, 6 Jan 2019 at 07:10, David Miller <davem@davemloft.net> wrote:
>
> From: Taehee Yoo <ap420073@gmail.com>
> Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2018 01:31:43 +0900
>
> > +void exit_umh(struct task_struct *tsk)
> > +{
> > +     struct umh_info *info;
> > +     pid_t pid = tsk->pid;
> > +
> > +     mutex_lock(&umh_list_lock);
> > +     list_for_each_entry(info, &umh_list, list) {
>

Thank you for review!

> So this is probably too expensive of a cost for every process exit.
> The problem is that the cost will be taken even if the process is
> not a UMH.
>

Yes, I agree with you.

> I've taken my time to respond in hopes that I could come up with a
> good alternative to suggest, but so far I don't have any better ideas.
>
> I'll keep thinking about this some more, please let me know if you
> have any ideas.

Thanks a lot for spending time to think about better ideas!
How about adding a new PF_UMH flag for task_struct->flags to identify
UMH process?
By using this flag, the exit_umh() can avoid unnecessary lookups.

Thanks again.