[lkml]   [2003]   [Feb]   [16]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: more signal locking bugs?
Linus Torvalds wrote:

>>What about this minimal patch? The performance critical operation is
>>signal delivery - we should fix the synchronization between signal
>>delivery and exec first.
>The patch looks ok, although I'd also remove the locking and testing from
>collect_sigign_sigcatch() once it is done at a higher level.
>And yeah, what about signal delivery? Put back the same lock there?
I don't know.
Taking read_lock(&tasklist_lock) for send_specific_sig_info might hurt
scalability. Ingo?

If we do not want a global lock, then we have two options:
- make task_lock an interrupt spinlock.
- add a second spinlock to the task structure, for the signal stuff.

Design question - what's worse? Memory bloat or a few additional
I don't care - no performance critical codepaths.
Additionally many task_lock()/task_unlock users could be replaced with
spin_unlock_wait(&task->alloc_lock), which would not need the


To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:33    [W:6.865 / U:0.004 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site