On Sun, 2006-06-25 at 04:50 +0400, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> Thomas Gleixner 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.
> >
> > --- 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;
> > }
>
> But we don't need read_lock(tasklist) and get_task_struct(p) at all?
>
> rcu_read_lock/rcu_read_unlock is enough, no?
Probably yes, did not think about that
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]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
