Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>
> There is no need to hold tasklist_lock across the setscheduler call, when we
> pin the task structure with get_task_struct(). Interrupts are disabled in
> setscheduler anyway and the permission checks do not need interrupts disabled.
>
> --- linux-2.6.17-mm.orig/kernel/sched.c 2006-06-22 10:26:11.000000000 +0200
> +++ linux-2.6.17-mm/kernel/sched.c 2006-06-22 10:26:11.000000000 +0200
> @@ -4140,8 +4140,10 @@
> read_unlock_irq(&tasklist_lock);
> return -ESRCH;
> }
> - retval = sched_setscheduler(p, policy, &lparam);
> + get_task_struct(p);
> read_unlock_irq(&tasklist_lock);
> + retval = sched_setscheduler(p, policy, &lparam);
> + put_task_struct(p);
> return retval;
> }
But we don't need read_lock(tasklist) and get_task_struct(p) at all?
rcu_read_lock/rcu_read_unlock is enough, no?
Oleg.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]