On Sun, 2006-05-14 at 12:44 -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Sun, 14 May 2006, Daniel Walker wrote:
>
> > Quite the smp_processor_id() wanrings. I don't see any SMP
> > concerns here . It just adds to a percpu list, so it shouldn't
> > matter if it switches after sampling fdtable_defer_list .
>
> I'm not so sure that there isn't SMP concerns here. I have to catch a
> train in a few minutes, otherwise I would look deeper into this. But this
> might be a candidate to turn fdtable_defer_list into a per_cpu_locked.
I reviewed it again, and it looks like these percpu structures have a
spinlock to protect the list from being emptied by a work queue while
things are being added to the list . The lock appears to be used
properly . The work queue frees struct fdtable pointers added to the
list , the only place these structures are added is in the block I've
modified .
I think making this a locked percpu would just be overkill ..
Daniel
-
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]
