[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1290705675.1941.73.camel@holzheu-laptop>
Date: Thu, 25 Nov 2010 18:21:15 +0100
From: Michael Holzheu <holzheu@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Cc: Shailabh Nagar <nagar1234@...ibm.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
John stultz <johnstul@...ibm.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Balbir Singh <balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@...ibm.com>,
Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com>,
Roland McGrath <roland@...hat.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-s390@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [patch 4/4] taskstats: Export "cdata_acct" with taskstats
Hello Oleg,
On Thu, 2010-11-25 at 14:26 +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 11/19, Michael Holzheu wrote:
> >
> > From: Michael Holzheu <holzheu@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
> >
> > With this patch the (full) cumulative CPU time is added to "struct taskstats".
> > The CPU time is only returned for the thread group leader.
> >
> > ...
> >
> > + if (tsk->tgid == tsk->pid
>
> thread_group_leader() ?
Yes, that's better.
> > && lock_task_sighand(tsk, &flags)) {
>
> Do you really need ->siglock? Starting from 2.6.35 it is always
> safe to access ->signal.
Hmmm, if you say that...
I just did it like it is done in e.g. fs/proc/base.c (proc_pid_limits).
Can we remove the locking there, too?
Michael
--
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