[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <45FA7823.2040104@sw.ru>
Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2007 13:57:39 +0300
From: Pavel Emelianov <xemul@...ru>
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...sign.ru>
CC: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
Sukadev Bhattiprolu <sukadev@...ibm.com>,
Serge Hallyn <serue@...ibm.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Containers <containers@...ts.osdl.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC] kernel/pid.c pid allocation wierdness
Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 03/14, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>> Pavel Emelianov <xemul@...ru> writes:
>>
>>> Hi.
>>>
>>> I'm looking at how alloc_pid() works and can't understand
>>> one (simple/stupid) thing.
>>>
>>> It first kmem_cache_alloc()-s a strct pid, then calls
>>> alloc_pidmap() and at the end it taks a global pidmap_lock()
>>> to add new pid to hash.
>
> We need some global lock. pidmap_lock is already here, and it is
> only used to protect pidmap->page allocation. Iow, it is almost
> unused. So it was very natural to re-use it while implementing
> pidrefs.
>
>>> The question is - why does alloc_pidmap() use at least
>>> two atomic ops and potentially loop to find a zero bit
>>> in pidmap? Why not call alloc_pidmap() under pidmap_lock
>>> and find zero pid in pidmap w/o any loops and atomics?
>
> Currently we search for zero bit lockless, why do you want
> to do it under spin_lock ?
Search isn't lockless. Look:
while (1) {
if (!test_and_set_bit(...)) {
atomic_dec(&nr_free);
return pid;
}
...
}
we use two atomic operations to find and set a bit in a map.
> Oleg.
>
>
-
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