On Thu, 22 Jun 2006 09:08:38 -0000
Thomas Gleixner <[email protected]> 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.
>
> Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <[email protected]>
> Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <[email protected]>
>
> kernel/sched.c | 4 +++-
> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> Index: linux-2.6.17-mm/kernel/sched.c
> ===================================================================
> --- 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;
> }
>
Is this optimisation actually related to the rt-mutex patches, or to the
other two patches?
-
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]
