On Sun, Jan 08, 2006 at 02:49:31PM +0300, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> Sorry for delay,
>
> Ravikiran G Thirumalai wrote:
> >
> > static void k_getrusage(struct task_struct *p, int who, struct rusage *r)
> > @@ -1681,14 +1697,22 @@ static void k_getrusage(struct task_stru
> > struct task_struct *t;
> > unsigned long flags;
> > cputime_t utime, stime;
> > + int need_lock = 0;
>
> Unneeded initialization
akpm changed the condition statement below with an if test. So it is needed now.
>
> > memset((char *) r, 0, sizeof *r);
> > -
> > - if (unlikely(!p->signal))
> > - return;
> > -
> > utime = stime = cputime_zero;
> >
> > + need_lock = !(p == current && thread_group_empty(p));
> > + if (need_lock) {
> > + read_lock(&tasklist_lock);
> > + if (unlikely(!p->signal)) {
> > + read_unlock(&tasklist_lock);
> > + return;
> > + }
> > + } else
> > + /* See locking comments above */
> > + smp_rmb();
>
> This patch doesn't try to optimize ->sighand.siglock locking,
> and I think this is right. But this also means we don't need
> rmb() here. It was needed to protect against "another thread
> just exited, cpu can read ->c* values before thread_group_empty()
> without taking siglock" case, now it is not possible.
Don't we still need rmb for the RUSAGE_SELF case? we do not take the
siglock for rusage self and the non c* signal fields are written to
at __exit_signal...
What is wrong with optimizing by not taking the siglock in RUSAGE_BOTH
and RUSAGE_CHILDREN? I would like to add that in too unless I am
missing something and the optimization is incorrect.
Thanks,
Kiran
-
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]
