[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20100324174907.GA20990@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2010 18:49:07 +0100
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...il.com>,
Roland McGrath <roland@...hat.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH -mm 0/3] proc: task->signal can't be NULL
On 03/23, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>
> We need a value that can be computed in constant time, and is not correct
> except when the number of threads is actively changing.
Sure. I was thinking of something like
int get_nr_threads(struct task_struct *tsk)
{
int nr = atomic_read(&task->signal->live);
int reasonable_min = 1;
rcu_read_lock();
if (!thread_group_leader(tsk) && pid_alive(tsk) &&
tsk->group_leader->exit_state)
reasonable_min = 2;
rcu_read_unlock();
return max(nr, reasonable_min);
}
but as I said this doesn't look nice at all.
> > OK. Let's keep this counter as "int nr_thread".
> >
> > Besides, when I tried to re-implement get_nr_threads() using signal->live
> > I got the really ugly result ;)
>
> Sounds good.
OK, please see the "final" patch I am going to send...
Oleg.
--
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