Ravikiran G Thirumalai wrote:
>
> On Sun, Jan 08, 2006 at 02:49:31PM +0300, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > > + } 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...
I think it is unneeded because RUSAGE_SELF case is "racy" anyway even
if we held both locks, task_struct->xxx counters can change at any
moment.
But may be you are right.
> 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.
We can't have contention on ->siglock when need_lock == 0, so why should
we optimize this case?
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]
