[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <m1lkgwndsu.fsf@ebiederm.dsl.xmission.com>
Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2007 15:51:29 -0600
From: ebiederm@...ssion.com (Eric W. Biederman)
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...sign.ru>,
Davide Libenzi <davidel@...ilserver.org>,
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
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org> writes:
> 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.
We need rcu_read_lock(). Or else something could permute the pid hash table
and get us into trouble.
Eric
-
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