[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20110414192059.GB23517@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2011 21:20:59 +0200
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: Matt Fleming <matt@...sole-pimps.org>
Cc: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Matt Fleming <matt.fleming@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 5/5] signals: Don't hold shared siglock across
signal delivery
On 04/14, Matt Fleming wrote:
>
> On Wed, 13 Apr 2011 22:12:19 +0200
> Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com> wrote:
>
> > This adds new races. And this time I do not even understand the intent.
> > I mean, it is not clear to me why this change can really help to speed
> > up get_signal_to_deliver().
>
> Again, it's not necessarily speeding up get_signal_to_deliver(), but
> rather it's reducing the contention on the shared siglock.
Yes, sorry for confusion. I used the "speed up" term wrongly throughout.
I understand what are you trying to do.
But yes, in this case I probably missed the intent,
> For example, without this patch, if you've got someone sending a signal
> to a task group, you can't run get_signal_to_deliver() in parallel
I missed the simple fact, get_signal_to_deliver() could avoid ->siglock
completely if it dequeues the private signal.
Btw, I forgot to mention another problem. We should not dequeue from
signal->shared_pending before task->pending. There are various reasons
why we shouldn't, but in particular please look at a27341cd
"Prioritize synchronous signals over 'normal' signals".
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