[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20120206163649.GB10104@kroah.com>
Date: Mon, 6 Feb 2012 08:36:49 -0800
From: Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To: Anton Vorontsov <anton.vorontsov@...aro.org>
Cc: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
Arve Hjønnevåg <arve@...roid.com>,
KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...il.com>,
San Mehat <san@...gle.com>, Colin Cross <ccross@...roid.com>,
"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kernel-team@...roid.com,
linaro-kernel@...ts.linaro.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/6] staging: android/lowmemorykiller: Don't grab
tasklist_lock
On Mon, Feb 06, 2012 at 08:29:41PM +0400, Anton Vorontsov wrote:
> Grabbing tasklist_lock has its disadvantages, i.e. it blocks
> process creation and destruction. If there are lots of processes,
> blocking doesn't sound as a great idea.
>
> For LMK, it is sufficient to surround tasks list traverse with
> rcu_read_{,un}lock().
>
> >From now on using force_sig() is not safe, as it can race with an
> already exiting task, so we use send_sig() now. As a downside, it
> won't kill PID namespace init processes, but that's not what we
> want anyway.
>
> Suggested-by: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
> Signed-off-by: Anton Vorontsov <anton.vorontsov@...aro.org>
Are these last 4 patches independant of the first 2 and can be taken
through the staging tree now?
thanks,
greg k-h
--
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