summaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
path: root/kernel/task_work.c
AgeCommit message (Collapse)AuthorFilesLines
2015-09-05task_work: remove fifo ordering guaranteeEric Dumazet1-10/+2
In commit f341861fb0b ("task_work: add a scheduling point in task_work_run()") I fixed a latency problem adding a cond_resched() call. Later, commit ac3d0da8f329 added yet another loop to reverse a list, bringing back the latency spike : I've seen in some cases this loop taking 275 ms, if for example a process with 2,000,000 files is killed. We could add yet another cond_resched() in the reverse loop, or we can simply remove the reversal, as I do not think anything would depend on order of task_work_add() submitted works. Fixes: ac3d0da8f329 ("task_work: Make task_work_add() lockless") Signed-off-by: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com> Reported-by: Maciej Żenczykowski <maze@google.com> Acked-by: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk> Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
2013-09-12task_work: documentationOleg Nesterov1-0/+36
No functional changes, just comments. Signed-off-by: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com> Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
2013-09-12task_work: minor cleanupsOleg Nesterov1-2/+2
Trivial. Remove the unnecessary "work = NULL" initialization and turn read_barrier_depends() into smp_read_barrier_depends() in task_work_cancel(). Signed-off-by: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com> Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
2012-09-13task_work: task_work_add() should not succeed after exit_task_work()Oleg Nesterov1-6/+16
ed3e694d "move exit_task_work() past exit_files() et.al" destroyed the add/exit synchronization we had, the caller itself should ensure task_work_add() can't race with the exiting task. However, this is not convenient/simple, and the only user which tries to do this is buggy (see the next patch). Unless the task is current, there is simply no way to do this in general. Change exit_task_work()->task_work_run() to use the dummy "work_exited" entry to let task_work_add() know it should fail. Signed-off-by: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com> Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl> Cc: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk> Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20120826191211.GA4228@redhat.com Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
2012-09-13task_work: Make task_work_add() locklessOleg Nesterov1-47/+48
Change task_work's to use llist-like code to avoid pi_lock in task_work_add(), this makes it useable under rq->lock. task_work_cancel() and task_work_run() still use pi_lock to synchronize with each other. (This is in preparation for a deadlock fix.) Suggested-by: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> Signed-off-by: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com> Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl> Cc: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk> Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20120826191209.GA4221@redhat.com Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
2012-08-21task_work: add a scheduling point in task_work_run()Eric Dumazet1-0/+1
It seems commit 4a9d4b024a31 ("switch fput to task_work_add") re- introduced the problem addressed in 944be0b22472 ("close_files(): add scheduling point") If a server process with a lot of files (say 2 million tcp sockets) is killed, we can spend a lot of time in task_work_run() and trigger a soft lockup. Signed-off-by: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com> Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
2012-07-22deal with task_work callbacks adding more workAl Viro1-12/+14
It doesn't matter on normal return to userland path (we'll recheck the NOTIFY_RESUME flag anyway), but in case of exit_task_work() we'll need that as soon as we get callbacks capable of triggering more task_work_add(). Signed-off-by: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
2012-07-22move exit_task_work() past exit_files() et.al.Al Viro1-19/+11
... and get rid of PF_EXITING check in task_work_add(). Signed-off-by: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
2012-07-22merge task_work and rcu_head, get rid of separate allocation for keyring caseAl Viro1-7/+7
task_work and rcu_head are identical now; merge them (calling the result struct callback_head, rcu_head #define'd to it), kill separate allocation in security/keys since we can just use cred->rcu now. Signed-off-by: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
2012-07-22trim task_work: get rid of hlistAl Viro1-31/+33
layout based on Oleg's suggestion; single-linked list, task->task_works points to the last element, forward pointer from said last element points to head. I'd still prefer much more regular scheme with two pointers in task_work, but... Signed-off-by: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
2012-05-24task_work_add: generic process-context callbacksOleg Nesterov1-0/+84
Provide a simple mechanism that allows running code in the (nonatomic) context of the arbitrary task. The caller does task_work_add(task, task_work) and this task executes task_work->func() either from do_notify_resume() or from do_exit(). The callback can rely on PF_EXITING to detect the latter case. "struct task_work" can be embedded in another struct, still it has "void *data" to handle the most common/simple case. This allows us to kill the ->replacement_session_keyring hack, and potentially this can have more users. Performance-wise, this adds 2 "unlikely(!hlist_empty())" checks into tracehook_notify_resume() and do_exit(). But at the same time we can remove the "replacement_session_keyring != NULL" checks from arch/*/signal.c and exit_creds(). Note: task_work_add/task_work_run abuses ->pi_lock. This is only because this lock is already used by lookup_pi_state() to synchronize with do_exit() setting PF_EXITING. Fortunately the scope of this lock in task_work.c is really tiny, and the code is unlikely anyway. Signed-off-by: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com> Acked-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> Cc: Richard Kuo <rkuo@codeaurora.org> Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> Cc: Alexander Gordeev <agordeev@redhat.com> Cc: Chris Zankel <chris@zankel.net> Cc: David Smith <dsmith@redhat.com> Cc: "Frank Ch. Eigler" <fche@redhat.com> Cc: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org> Cc: Larry Woodman <lwoodman@redhat.com> Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> Cc: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org> Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu> Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> Signed-off-by: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>