[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CA+i8gKJ99-f0Q=kqf2=zY_kjSt8UE6jq0nETWmW0fSdnh00vCw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 2 Mar 2013 11:43:08 +0700
From: Emmanuel Benisty <benisty.e@...il.com>
To: Davidlohr Bueso <davidlohr.bueso@...com>
Cc: Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
"Vinod, Chegu" <chegu_vinod@...com>,
"Low, Jason" <jason.low2@...com>,
linux-tip-commits@...r.kernel.org,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, aquini@...hat.com,
Michel Lespinasse <walken@...gle.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Larry Woodman <lwoodman@...hat.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/2] ipc: do not hold ipc lock more than necessary
Hi,
On Sat, Mar 2, 2013 at 7:16 AM, Davidlohr Bueso <davidlohr.bueso@...com> wrote:
> The following set of not-thoroughly-tested patches are based on the
> discussion of holding the ipc lock unnecessarily, such as for permissions
> and security checks:
>
> https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/2/28/540
>
> Patch 0/1: Introduces new functions, analogous to ipc_lock and ipc_lock_check
> in the ipc utility code, allowing to obtain the ipc object without holding the lock.
>
> Patch 0/2: Use the new functions and only acquire the ipc lock when needed.
Not sure how much a work in progress this is but my machine dies
immediately when I start chromium, crappy mobile phone picture here:
http://i.imgur.com/S0hfPz3.jpg
Thanks.
--
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