[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20080402194836.4933026F98A@magilla.localdomain>
Date: Wed, 2 Apr 2008 12:48:36 -0700 (PDT)
From: Roland McGrath <roland@...hat.com>
To: Frank Mayhar <fmayhar@...gle.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: posix-cpu-timers revamp
> One quick note: this inline isn't needed for the 2b solution (allocate
> percpu storage in copy_signal CLONE_THREAD case), since if there's more
> than one thread there'll always be a percpu area and if there's only one
> thread the summation code won't be entered.
That's true. I still think it's a good idea to have it, even if it winds
up being empty in the variants we really use. The principle is that the
new set of types/functions could be used to implement exactly what we have
now. In fact, it's usually best to do a series of small patches that start
with introducing the abstraction while not changing anything.
> And another quick note: It appears that with the "allocate percpu
> storage in copy_signal CLONE_THREAD case" mechanism, I don't need to
> worry about allocating it anywhere else. If I need it (which is only in
> the case of multiple threads and an interval timer) then I'll have it
> because it was allocated with the second thread.
That's correct.
> So I just eliminate the allocation in do_setitimer() entirely.
Again, I'd leave the call to the inline that would do it.
For this implementation plan, its body is:
BUG_ON(!task->signal->cputime.totals && !thread_group_empty(task));
Thanks,
Roland
--
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