[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20071023164124.GA4666@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2007 22:11:24 +0530
From: Srivatsa Vaddagiri <vatsa@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: "Paul Menage" <menage@...gle.com>
Cc: "Andrew Morton" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
"Ingo Molnar" <mingo@...e.hu>,
containers@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, dmitry.adamushko@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] CFS CGroup: Report usage
On Mon, Oct 22, 2007 at 11:06:54PM -0700, Paul Menage wrote:
> > > + for_each_possible_cpu(i) {
> > > + unsigned long flags;
> > > + spin_lock_irqsave(&tg->cfs_rq[i]->rq->lock, flags);
> >
> > Is the lock absolutely required here?
>
> I'm not sure, I was hoping you or Ingo could comment on this. But some
> kind of locking seems to required at least on 32-bit platforms, since
> sum_exec_runtime is a 64-bit number.
I tend to agree abt 32-bit platforms requiring a lock to read the 64-bit
sum_exec_runtime field.
Ingo/Dmitry, what do you think? fs/proc/array.c:task_utime() is also
buggy in that case.
--
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