[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1259616429.26472.499.camel@laptop>
Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2009 22:27:09 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [rfc] "fair" rw spinlocks
On Mon, 2009-11-30 at 22:12 +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> I think the conversion Linus proposed is pretty feasible. I went
> through the read_lock sites and most of them are protecting function
> calls which we already use under rcu_read_lock() in other places like
> find_task* and thread or pid iterators.
>
> There are a few non obvious ones in signal.c and posix-cpu-timers.c
> (what a surprise) but nothing looks too scary.
>
> If nobody beats me I'm going to let sed loose on the kernel, lift the
> task_struct rcu free code from -rt and figure out what explodes.
Things like sched.c:tg_set_bandwidth() take the tasklist_lock in
read-mode to exclude tasks being added concurrently to avoid
sched_rt_can_attach() races with tg_has_rt_tasks().
Possibly the cgroup stuff has a smaller lock to use for this.
--
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