On Wed, 23 Aug 2006 00:11:17 -0600
[email protected] (Eric W. Biederman) wrote:
> KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <[email protected]> writes:
>
> > On Tue, 22 Aug 2006 10:56:08 -0600
> > [email protected] (Eric W. Biederman) wrote:
> The core problem is not when there is a single user. The problem is
> that no matter how large the system gets we have a single lock. So it
> gets increasingly contended.
> I almost removed the tasklist_lock from all read paths. But as it
> happens sending a signal to a process group is an atomic operation
> with respect to fork so that path has to take the lock, or else
> we get places where "kill -9 -pgrp" fails to kill every process in
> the process group. Which is even worse.
>
Hmm, maybe tasklist_lock covers too wide area.
we can add some other (RCU) lock just for linked list from init_task.tasks.
And pid_alive() will help people who want to access not stale task.
Now, job in fork() is
- set cpu allowed
- set parent
- attach pgid, sid
- add to linked list from init_task
- attach pid
Then, adding for_each_alive_process() and new (RCU) lock for
linked_list_from_init_task_lock (divide lock) and change job as
- set cpu allowed
- set parent
- attach pgid, sid
- attach pid
new_list_writelock()
- add to linked list
new_list_writeunlock()
may reduce contention. for_each_alive_process() will do
rcu_readlock()
for (task =....)
if (!pid_alive(task))
continue;
rcu_readunlock();
Is this bad ?
> >> In addition you only solves half the readdir problems. You don't solve
> >> the seek problem which is returning to an offset you had been to
> >> before. A relatively rare case but...
> >>
> > Ah, I should add lseek handler for proc root. Okay.
>
> Hmm. Possibly. Mostly what I was thinking is that a token in the
> list simply cannot solve the problem of a guaranteeing lseek to a
> previous position works. I really haven't looked closely on
> how you handle that case.
>
I'll try some. But lseek on directory, which is modified at any moment, cannot
work stable anyway.
> > My patch's point is just using task_list if we can, because it exists for
> > keeping
> > all tasks(tgids).
>
> One of the reasons I have an issue with it, is that with the
> impending introduction of multiple pid spaces is that the task list
> really isn't what we want to traverse.
>
Yes, scanning the whole space is not good.
I think this can be handlerd by task_lists per pid-space.
Is pidmap is maintained per pid-space ?
-Kame
-
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]
