[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20070319203615.GA83@tv-sign.ru>
Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2007 23:36:15 +0300
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...sign.ru>
To: Davide Libenzi <davidel@...ilserver.org>
Cc: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [patch 2/13] signal/timer/event fds v6 - signalfd core ...
On 03/19, Davide Libenzi wrote:
>
> On Mon, 19 Mar 2007, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>
> > > +struct signalfd_ctx {
> > > + struct list_head lnk;
> > > + wait_queue_head_t wqh;
> > > + sigset_t sigmask;
> > > + struct task_struct *tsk;
> > > +};
> >
> > I think you want to use a struct pid *pid instead of a pointer to the
> > task struct here. It is slightly less efficient (one more
> > dereference) but it means that we won't pin the task struct in memory
> > indefinitely. Pinning the task_struct like this makes for a very
> > interesting way to get around the limits on the number of processes a
> > user can have.
>
> Hmm, when the task is detached from the sighand, we get a notify, so I
> could do a put from there. This would avoid the extra de-reference. I need
> to verify locking though ...
In that case (if I understand you correctly) we don't need {get,put}_task_struct()
at all.
signalfd_deliver(-1) sets ctx->tsk = NULL, signalfd_get_sighand() reads ->tsk
under rcu_read_lock(). The code becomes even simpler, we don't need to check
list_empty(&ctx->lnk).
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