[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20100329181204.GA16356@redhat.com>
Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2010 20:12:04 +0200
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Balbir Singh <balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Americo Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>,
"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
Hidetoshi Seto <seto.hidetoshi@...fujitsu.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Roland McGrath <roland@...hat.com>,
Spencer Candland <spencer@...ehost.com>,
Stanislaw Gruszka <sgruszka@...hat.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: [PATCH -mm 0/4] cputimers/proc: do_task_stat: don't walk through
the thread list under ->siglock
On 03/29, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>
> Yes sure. I dislike the do_task_stat() case because we always do this,
> even if this info is not needed, say, for /bin/ps.
Note also that nobody else in /fs/proc needs ->siglock. Except
do_io_accounting(), but in this case the user-space explicitly asks for
this info.
OK, This is V2. Still RFC, although I think 1/4 makes sense in any case.
Please comment. Again, I am more or less sure these changes are "correct",
but I don't know what /bin/top can think ;)
I don't really like the fact thread_group_times() takes cputimer.lock,
but imho lock_task_sighand() in do_task_stat() is much worse.
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