![]() | |||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
On Thu, 2006-06-22 at 18:48 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > On Thu, 22 Jun 2006 09:08:38 -0000 > Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> wrote: > > > > > There is no need to hold tasklist_lock across the setscheduler call, when we > > pin the task structure with get_task_struct(). Interrupts are disabled in > > setscheduler anyway and the permission checks do not need interrupts disabled. > > > > Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> > > Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu> > > > > kernel/sched.c | 4 +++- > > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > Index: linux-2.6.17-mm/kernel/sched.c > > =================================================================== > > --- linux-2.6.17-mm.orig/kernel/sched.c 2006-06-22 10:26:11.000000000 +0200 > > +++ linux-2.6.17-mm/kernel/sched.c 2006-06-22 10:26:11.000000000 +0200 > > @@ -4140,8 +4140,10 @@ > > read_unlock_irq(&tasklist_lock); > > return -ESRCH; > > } > > - retval = sched_setscheduler(p, policy, &lparam); > > + get_task_struct(p); > > read_unlock_irq(&tasklist_lock); > > + retval = sched_setscheduler(p, policy, &lparam); > > + put_task_struct(p); > > return retval; > > } > > > > Is this optimisation actually related to the rt-mutex patches, or to the > other two patches? Yes. We neither want interrupt disabled nor holding tasklist lock when it comes to the lock chain walk. So its a preperatory patch and a general optimization. tglx - 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/ | ||||||||||
| Last update: 2006-06-23 08:02 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||