[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20070213081625.GA4252@in.ibm.com>
Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 13:46:25 +0530
From: Srivatsa Vaddagiri <vatsa@...ibm.com>
To: "Paul Menage" <menage@...gle.com>
Cc: sekharan@...ibm.com, ckrm-tech@...ts.sourceforge.net,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, xemul@...ru, dev@...ru,
containers@...ts.osdl.org, pj@....com, ebiederm@...ssion.com,
mbligh@...gle.com, winget@...gle.com, rohitseth@...gle.com,
serue@...ibm.com, devel@...nvz.org
Subject: Re: [ckrm-tech] [PATCH 1/7] containers (V7): Generic container system abstracted from cpusets code
On Tue, Feb 13, 2007 at 11:18:57AM +0530, Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote:
> Which make me wonder why we need task_lock() at all ..I can understand
> the need for a lock like that if we are reading/updating multiple words
> in task_struct under the lock. In this case, it is used to read/write
> just one pointer, isnt it? I think it can be eliminated all-together
> with the use of RCU.
I see that cpuset.c uses task_lock to read/write multiple words
(cpuset_update_task_memory_state) ..So yes it is necessary in attach_task() ..
--
Regards,
vatsa
-
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