[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20070413143104.99a1eeb9.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2007 14:31:04 -0700
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...sign.ru>
Cc: Davide Libenzi <davidel@...ilserver.org>,
"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>,
Roland McGrath <roland@...hat.com>,
Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] make kthread_create() more scalable
On Fri, 13 Apr 2007 17:02:01 +0400
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...sign.ru> wrote:
> If kernel_thread(kthread) succeeds, kthread() can not fail on its path to
> complete(&create->started) + schedule(). After that it can't be woken because
> nobody can see the new task yet. This means:
>
> - we don't need tasklist_lock for find_task_by_pid().
>
> - create_kthread() doesn't need to wait for create->started. Instead,
> kthread_create() first waits for create->created to get the result of
> kernel_thread(), then waits for create->started to synchronize with
> kthread().
Why don't we need tasklist_lock for find_task_by_pid()? I'd have though that
we'd at least need rcu_read_lock(), and I'm not sure that the implicit
understanding of pid-management internals here is a great idea.
-
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