Re: [RFC,PATCH 5/5] exec: RT sub-thread can livelock and monopolize CPU on exec

Maybe it can use wait_task_inactive, which IIUC is being changed to address
the same RT issue.  OTOH, notify_count exists only for this.  So maybe the
better way is to clean that whole mechanism up somehow.  The exit.c changes
in your patch seem to be making it more mysterious rather than less so.
I haven't really thought much about the better solution.


Thanks,
Roland
-
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/

---

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: [RFC,PATCH 5/5] exec: RT sub-thread can livelock and monopolize CPU on exec
    • From: Oleg Nesterov <[email protected]>

• References:
  • [RFC,PATCH 5/5] exec: RT sub-thread can livelock and monopolize CPU on exec
    • From: Oleg Nesterov <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: Re: + proc-export-a-processes-resource-limits-via-proc-pid.patch added to -mm tree
• Next by Date: Re: Thinking outside the box on file systems
• Previous by thread: [RFC,PATCH 5/5] exec: RT sub-thread can livelock and monopolize CPU on exec
• Next by thread: Re: [RFC,PATCH 5/5] exec: RT sub-thread can livelock and monopolize CPU on exec
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread

[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]