[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1289922108.5169.185.camel@maggy.simson.net>
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2010 08:41:48 -0700
From: Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
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 Tue, 2010-11-16 at 16:03 +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> 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.
Aha!
> Perhaps this deserve a commen (unless I missed something again).
>
> Mike, sorry for confusion.
Oh no, thank you. I hadn't figured it out yet, was going to go back and
poke rt kernel with sharp sticks. (exit can be one scary beast)
-Mike
--
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