[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.1.10.0812041044250.19693@gandalf.stny.rr.com>
Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2008 10:44:44 -0500 (EST)
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To: Dave Hansen <dave@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
cc: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Steven Rostedt <srostedt@...hat.com>,
containers@...ts.osdl.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Sukadev Bhattiprolu <sukadev@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Dipankar Sarma <dipankar@...ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] ftrace: use struct pid
On Thu, 4 Dec 2008, Dave Hansen wrote:
> >
> > We probably should. Historically read_lock(&tasklist_lock) implies
> > rcu_read_lock(). And the tasklist lock is what we hold when it is
> > safe.
>
> So, Dipankar tells me that you really do need rcu_read_lock/unlock() for
> the guarantee here; the tasklist lock is not sufficient. The realtime
> kernel will preempt even those sections covered by spinlocks.
Yes it will.
-- Steve
--
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