[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20090624185701.AA74C4059B@magilla.sf.frob.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2009 11:57:01 -0700 (PDT)
From: Roland McGrath <roland@...hat.com>
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Ratan Nalumasu <rnalumasu@...il.com>,
Vitaly Mayatskikh <vmayatsk@...hat.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC,PATCH 2/2] change __wake_up_parent() to use filtered
wakeup
> I think the check below is orthogonal to eligible_child().
Yes.
> Not sure
> eligible_child() can really help, but otoh it is cheap and doesn't hurt.
> But perhaps we can kill it later.
No, it's a very good check to have. It is ideal for waitpid(ONE_PID,...)
uses, which are also probably quite common.
> > (and ->parent is perhaps
> > not right in all cases there).
>
> I think this is right... Except I'd like to avoid using ->parent.
Agreed. The not-right case I had in mind was do_notify_parent_cldstop
where maybe it could be ->real_parent of the untraced group_leader.
> > Your two patches as they are look safe and useful to me and I hope they can
> > go in soon.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Yes I think these 2 patches should be applied first, even if eligible_child()
> itself doesn't buy much. It will be cleaner if we add "real" checks on top.
Agreed.
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