Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Fri, 5 Nov 2021 18:27:55 +0100
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To:     Mathias Krause <minipli@grsecurity.net>
Cc:     Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>,
        Michal =?iso-8859-1?Q?Koutn=FD?= <mkoutny@suse.com>,
        Benjamin Segall <bsegall@google.com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@redhat.com>,
        Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
        Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>,
        Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@redhat.com>,
        Valentin Schneider <Valentin.Schneider@arm.com>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Odin Ugedal <odin@uged.al>,
        Kevin Tanguy <kevin.tanguy@corp.ovh.com>,
        Brad Spengler <spender@grsecurity.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched/fair: Prevent dead task groups from regaining
 cfs_rq's
Message-ID: <YYVpm7LRWMZMzxId@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
References: <xm26ilx86gmp.fsf@google.com>
 <CAKfTPtBm4vHr=svju=Qg6eZmcv8YDghtM2r_pOahZ2gC3tzTxg@mail.gmail.com>
 <a6a3c6c9-d5ea-59b6-8871-0f72bff38833@grsecurity.net>
 <CAKfTPtBxoKBRWs4Z3Pxsk8==Ka9SG7NS3LzfOV33-2UXfhSM=g@mail.gmail.com>
 <cd3778d3-6980-a804-47e3-82b09dc960a4@grsecurity.net>
 <CAKfTPtDthksitm02sLowDMKbWZ29efth-YcPi0zVSFqbaZfiMA@mail.gmail.com>
 <8f4ed996-e6e5-75f4-b5fa-dffb7b7da05b@grsecurity.net>
 <20211105162914.215420-1-minipli@grsecurity.net>
 <YYVim5qpteqfwYjx@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <a113044b-b5b6-8bc1-864b-c817535889ff@grsecurity.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <a113044b-b5b6-8bc1-864b-c817535889ff@grsecurity.net>
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Nov 05, 2021 at 06:14:33PM +0100, Mathias Krause wrote:
> Am 05.11.21 um 17:58 schrieb Peter Zijlstra:
> > On Fri, Nov 05, 2021 at 05:29:14PM +0100, Mathias Krause wrote:
> >>> Looks like it needs to be the kfree_rcu() one in this case. I'll prepare
> >>> a patch.
> >>
> >> Testing the below patch right now. Looking good so far. Will prepare a
> >> proper patch later, if we all can agree that this covers all cases.
> >>
> >> But the basic idea is to defer the kfree()'s to after the next RCU GP,
> >> which also means we need to free the tg object itself later. Slightly
> >> ugly. :/
> > 
> > Can't we add an rcu_head to struct task_group and simply call_rcu() the
> > thing with a free function?
> 
> There is already one and this patch makes use of it for the second RCU
> GP requirement. Basically, the patch is doing what you request, no? See
> the new free_fair_sched_group().

For some reason I thought you still did kfree_rcu(), I suppose reading
is hard. I'll give it another go after dinner.