[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20211213220401.1039578-1-brho@google.com>
Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2021 17:04:01 -0500
From: Barret Rhoden <brho@...gle.com>
To: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
Christian Brauner <christian.brauner@...ntu.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Alexey Gladkov <legion@...nel.org>,
William Cohen <wcohen@...hat.com>,
Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>,
Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...il.com>,
Chris Hyser <chris.hyser@...cle.com>,
Peter Collingbourne <pcc@...gle.com>,
Xiaofeng Cao <caoxiaofeng@...ong.com>,
David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>,
Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@...il.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: [PATCH] rlimits: do not grab tasklist_lock for do_prlimit on current
The tasklist_lock can be a scalability bottleneck. For current tasks,
we don't need the tasklist_lock to protect tsk->sighand or tsk->signal.
If non-current callers become a bottleneck, we could use
lock_task_sighand().
Signed-off-by: Barret Rhoden <brho@...gle.com>
---
kernel/sys.c | 6 ++++--
1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/kernel/sys.c b/kernel/sys.c
index 8fdac0d90504..e56d1ae910af 100644
--- a/kernel/sys.c
+++ b/kernel/sys.c
@@ -1576,7 +1576,8 @@ int do_prlimit(struct task_struct *tsk, unsigned int resource,
}
/* protect tsk->signal and tsk->sighand from disappearing */
- read_lock(&tasklist_lock);
+ if (tsk != current)
+ read_lock(&tasklist_lock);
if (!tsk->sighand) {
retval = -ESRCH;
goto out;
@@ -1611,7 +1612,8 @@ int do_prlimit(struct task_struct *tsk, unsigned int resource,
IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_POSIX_TIMERS))
update_rlimit_cpu(tsk, new_rlim->rlim_cur);
out:
- read_unlock(&tasklist_lock);
+ if (tsk != current)
+ read_unlock(&tasklist_lock);
return retval;
}
--
2.34.1.173.g76aa8bc2d0-goog
Powered by blists - more mailing lists