Date:   Fri, 17 Feb 2023 11:25:21 +0100
From:   Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
To:     David Vernet <void@manifault.com>
Cc:     mingo@redhat.com, peterz@infradead.org, juri.lelli@redhat.com,
        vincent.guittot@linaro.org, rostedt@goodmis.org,
        bsegall@google.com, mgorman@suse.de, bristot@redhat.com,
        vschneid@redhat.com, kernel-team@meta.com,
        torvalds@linux-foundation.org, ebiederm@xmission.com,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] tasks: Extract rcu_users out of union
Message-ID: <20230217102521.GA27682@redhat.com>
References: <20230215233033.889644-1-void@manifault.com>
 <20230216080459.GA5200@redhat.com>
 <Y+54c0YvXcMIFva4@maniforge>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <Y+54c0YvXcMIFva4@maniforge>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30)
Precedence: bulk

On 02/16, David Vernet wrote:
>
> On Thu, Feb 16, 2023 at 09:04:59AM +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> >
> > >    a task that's successfully looked
> > >    up in e.g. the pid_list with find_task_by_pid_ns(), can always have a
> > >    'usage' reference acquired on them, as it's guaranteed to be >
> > >    0 until after the next gp.
> >
> > Yes. So it seems you need another key-to-task_struct map with rcu-safe
> > lookup/get and thus the add() method needs inc_not_zero(task->rcu_users) ?
>
> Yes, exactly.

OK, in this case I agree, inc_not_zero(rcu_users) makes sense and thus we need
this patch.

Just I was confused by the previous part of the changelog due to my bad English.

Thanks,

Oleg.