[lkml]   [2009]   [Apr]   [21]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: Q: check_unsafe_exec() races (Was: [PATCH 2/4] fix setuid sometimes doesn't)

    On Tue, 21 Apr 2009, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
    > > (You do rcu_read_unlock() earlier, but that's okay.)
    > Yes, but unless we have a "strong" reason, it is better to take
    > fs->lock first. rcu_read_lock() is free, but disables preemption.

    .. but so does taking a spinlock. So it shouldn't matter.

    We could play games with that (the same way I think we have some games for
    large-system irq latency with '__raw_spin_lock_flags()' on ia64), but that
    makes sense only when you have lots of CPU's and expect irq latency to

    And it doesn't tend to make sense for preemption latency, because if you
    have so many CPU's that you have lots of spinning on locks, you would
    normally not really care deeply about preemption (sure, in theory it's a
    real-time thing, in practice I doubt you'll find anybody who cares).


     \ /
      Last update: 2009-04-21 18:45    [W:0.020 / U:5.788 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site