On Thu, 2005-09-29 at 18:46 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > you are not the culprit :)
>
> Woo-hoo!!! Exonerated!!! This time, anyway... ;-)
My pleasure :)
> > It can not be run from hardirq context, as it takes a lot of locks
> > (especially our favorites: tasklist_lock and sighand->siglock). :(
> >
> > Maybe another playground for rcu, but it might also be solved by some
> > other mechanism for accounting and delayed execution in the PREEMPT_RT
> > case.
>
> Certainly check_thread_timers() and check_process_timers() are playing
> with a number of task_struct fields, so it is not immediately clear
> to me how to safely replace tasklist_lock with RCU, at least not with
> a simple and small patch.
>
> What did you have in mind for delayed execution?
Do only the time check in hard irq context and defer the lock protected
operations to a softirq context. Have to look deeper at the details
though.
tglx
-
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]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
| |
 |