lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2011]   [May]   [18]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
DateWed, 18 May 2011 14:06:49 +0900
FromKOSAKI Motohiro <>
SubjectRe: [PATCH 1/4] comm: Introduce comm_lock spinlock to protect task->comm access
>> If we provide __get_task_comm(), we can't remove memset() forever.
>
> True enough. I'll fix that comment up then.
>
>>
>>> task_lock(tsk);
>>> + spin_lock_irqsave(&tsk->comm_lock, flags);
>>
>> This is strange order. task_lock() doesn't disable interrupt.
>
> Strange order? Can you explain why you think that is? Having comm_lock
> as an inner-most lock seems quite reasonable, given the limited nature
> of what it protects.

spinlock -> irq_disable is wrong order.

local_irq_save()
task_lock()
spin_lock(task->comm)

is better. I think.

I mean if the task get interrupt at following point,

task_lock(tsk);
// HERE
spin_lock_irqsave(&tsk->comm_lock, flags);
the task hold task-lock long time rather than expected.

>> And, can you please document why we need interrupt disabling?
>
> Since we might access current->comm from irq context. Where would you
> like this documented? Just there in the code?

I'm prefer code comment. but another way is also good.


Thanks.



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2011-05-18 07:09    [from the cache]
©2003-2010