[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20060927140659.GA31025@elte.hu>
Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2006 16:06:59 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>
Cc: Bill Huey <billh@...ppy.monkey.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
John Stultz <johnstul@...ibm.com>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ibm.com>,
Dipankar Sarma <dipankar@...ibm.com>,
Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] move put_task_struct() reaping into a thread [Re: 2.6.18-rt1]
* Eric W. Biederman <ebiederm@...ssion.com> wrote:
> I'm still wondering if we can move put_task_struct a little lower in
> the logic in the places where it is called, so it isn't called under a
> lock, or with preemption disabled. The only downside I see is that it
> might convolute the logic into unreadability.
well it's all a function of the task reaping logic: right now we in
essence complete the reaping from the scheduler, via prev_state ==
TASK_DEAD. We cannot do it sooner because the task is still in use. I
had one other implementation upstream some time ago, which was a
single-slot cache for reaped tasks - but that uglified other codepaths
because _something_ has to notice that the task has been unscheduled.
Ingo
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists