[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20101116150319.GA3475@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2010 16:03:20 +0100
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Markus Trippelsdorf <markus@...ppelsdorf.de>,
Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC/RFT PATCH v3] sched: automated per tty task groups
On 11/16, Mike Galbraith wrote:
>
> On Tue, 2010-11-16 at 14:04 +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > However, I must admit I dislike this check. Because, looking at this
> > code, it is not clear why do we check PF_EXITING. It looks as if it
> > is needed for correctness.
>
> Is _not_ needed I presume.
>
> I'll remove it, I'm not overly attached (a t t a..;) to it.
Argh!
I was wrong, it _is_ needed for correctness. Yes, it is always safe
to read the pointer, but
> > Yes, sure, rq->lock should ensure signal->autogroup can't go away.
> > (even if it can be changed under us). And it does, we are moving all
> > threads before kref_put().
>
> (yeah)
Exactly. And this means we can _only_ assume it can't go away if
autogroup_move_group() can see us on ->thread_group list.
Perhaps this deserve a commen (unless I missed something again).
Mike, sorry for confusion.
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