[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4DD346C4.5030200@jp.fujitsu.com>
Date: Wed, 18 May 2011 13:10:44 +0900
From: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>
To: penguin-kernel@...ove.SAKURA.ne.jp
CC: john.stultz@...aro.org, tytso@....edu, mina86@...a86.com,
jirislaby@...il.com, rientjes@...gle.com, dave@...ux.vne,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] v4 Improve task->comm locking situation
(2011/05/18 12:16), Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> What about replacing
> char comm[TASK_COMM_LEN];
> with
> char *rcu_commname;
> and switching it atomically using RCU?
>
> Advantages:
> Readers can use RCU read lock rather than spinlock.
> Makes task_struct smaller.
>
> Disadvantages:
> Need to allocate TASK_COMM_LEN bytes upon dup_task_struct() and set_task_comm().
> Need to rewrite all task_struct.comm readers (steps shown below).
>
> Steps to rewrite task_struct.comm readers
>
> (1) Introduce a temporary accessor (say, task_comm).
>
> #define task_comm(tsk) (tsk)->comm
>
> (2) Rewrite all tsk->comm users to task_comm(tsk).
>
> (3) Replace sizeof(tsk->comm) with TASK_COMM_LEN.
The problem is, they aren't a few. But if you have a enough brave,
you can rewrite all. I'm not against it.
--
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