Prev: [PATCH -mm 1/4] cputimers: thread_group_cputime: cleanup rcu/signal stuff
Next: [PATCH -mm 3/4] cputimers: thread_group_times: make it rcu-safe
From: Oleg Nesterov on 29 Mar 2010 14:20
On 03/29, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>
> Yes sure. I dislike the do_task_stat() case because we always do this,
> even if this info is not needed, say, for /bin/ps.

Note also that nobody else in /fs/proc needs ->siglock. Except
do_io_accounting(), but in this case the user-space explicitly asks for
this info.


OK, This is V2. Still RFC, although I think 1/4 makes sense in any case.

Please comment. Again, I am more or less sure these changes are "correct",
but I don't know what /bin/top can think ;)

I don't really like the fact thread_group_times() takes cputimer.lock,
but imho lock_task_sighand() in do_task_stat() is much worse.

Oleg.

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo(a)vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
 | 
Pages: 1
Prev: [PATCH -mm 1/4] cputimers: thread_group_cputime: cleanup rcu/signal stuff
Next: [PATCH -mm 3/4] cputimers: thread_group_times: make it rcu-safe