[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20101021105114.GA10216@Krystal>
Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2010 06:51:14 -0400
From: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>
To: Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
Markus Trippelsdorf <markus@...ppelsdorf.de>
Subject: Re: [RFC/RFT PATCH] sched: automated per tty task groups
* Mike Galbraith (efault@....de) wrote:
[...]
> +static void
> +autogroup_attach_tty(struct task_struct *p, struct task_group **tg)
> +{
> + struct tty_struct *tty = p->signal->tty;
> +
> + if (!tty)
> + return;
> +
> + *tg = p->signal->tty->tg;
> +}
> +
> +static inline void
> +autogroup_check_attach(struct task_struct *p, struct task_group **tg)
> +{
> + if (!sysctl_sched_autogroup_enabled || *tg != &root_task_group ||
> + p->sched_class != &fair_sched_class)
> + return;
> +
> + rcu_read_lock();
> +
> + autogroup_attach_tty(p, tg);
> +
> + rcu_read_unlock();
> +}
> +
Hi Mike,
This per-tty task grouping approach looks very promising. I'll give it a spin
when I find the time. Meanwhile, a little question about locking here: how is
the read lock supposed to protect from p->signal (and p->signal->tty)
modifications ? What's the locking scheme here ? So maybe just simple
rcu_dereference are missing, or maybe the tsk->sighand->siglock might be
required. In all cases, I feel something is missing there.
Thanks!
Mathieu
--
Mathieu Desnoyers
Operating System Efficiency R&D Consultant
EfficiOS Inc.
http://www.efficios.com
--
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