lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2010]   [Nov]   [16]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [RFC/RFT PATCH v3] sched: automated per tty task groups
From
Date
On Tue, 2010-11-16 at 16:03 +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 11/16, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, 2010-11-16 at 14:04 +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > > However, I must admit I dislike this check. Because, looking at this
> > > code, it is not clear why do we check PF_EXITING. It looks as if it
> > > is needed for correctness.
> >
> > Is _not_ needed I presume.
> >
> > I'll remove it, I'm not overly attached (a t t a..;) to it.
>
> Argh!
>
> I was wrong, it _is_ needed for correctness. Yes, it is always safe
> to read the pointer, but
>
> > > Yes, sure, rq->lock should ensure signal->autogroup can't go away.
> > > (even if it can be changed under us). And it does, we are moving all
> > > threads before kref_put().
> >
> > (yeah)
>
> Exactly. And this means we can _only_ assume it can't go away if
> autogroup_move_group() can see us on ->thread_group list.

Aha!

> Perhaps this deserve a commen (unless I missed something again).
>
> Mike, sorry for confusion.

Oh no, thank you. I hadn't figured it out yet, was going to go back and
poke rt kernel with sharp sticks. (exit can be one scary beast)

-Mike



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2010-11-16 16:45    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans