On 11/29, Michael Holzheu wrote:
quoted text
>
> Hello Oleg,
>
> On Mon, 2010-11-29 at 17:43 +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > > I just did it like it is done in e.g. fs/proc/base.c (proc_pid_limits).
> > > Can we remove the locking there, too?
> >
> > We can certainly remove more siglock's which were previously
> > needed to access ->signal.
> >
> > This particular one is just wrong. We need task_lock(group_leader)
> > to read signal->rlim atomically. However, it is not trivial to do
> > this correctly. Probably we should ignore this minor problem.
> >
> > In any case, this ->siglock buys nothing today.
>
> But at least to get the two values cutime and cstime consistent we need
> the siglock? There could be a parallel update for
> tsk->signal->cutime/cstime, while the taskstats are created, no?

I guess you mean 4/4 you sent. Probably you are right, I'll try
to look tomorrow.

Oleg.

--
unsubscribe notice
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/