[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Sat, 25 Jun 2016 18:23:19 -0700
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
Cc: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>, Brian Gerst <brgerst@...il.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>, "the arch/x86 maintainers" <x86@...nel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-arch@...r.kernel.org" <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
Nadav Amit <nadav.amit@...il.com>, Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
"kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com" <kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com>, Jann Horn <jann@...jh.net>,
Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 00/13] Virtually mapped stacks with guard pages (x86, core)
On Sat, Jun 25, 2016 at 4:30 PM, Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net> wrote:
>
> Maybe I'm misunderstanding the role of release_task. It looks like
> there's this path in the scheduler I can borrow:
>
> if (unlikely(prev_state == TASK_DEAD)) {
>
> With a kludge in place to free the stack in there and release_task and
> __put_task_struct, whichever is first, I get a nice speedup.
> Benchmarks coming later on. Can I rely on that code path always being
> called?
Absolutely. That's the normal "task is done, put the thread struct".
IOW, that's the final "put_task_struct()" that the task "itself" calls
as it exits - there may be other things that hold a reference to the
task struct, but that's where you should free the stack because the
thread itself is done with it..
Linus
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
