[lkml]   [2007]   [Feb]   [13]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH 1/7] containers (V7): Generic container system abstracted from cpusets code
On Mon, Feb 12, 2007 at 11:46:20AM -0800, Paul Menage wrote:
> On further reflection, this probably would be safe after all. Since we
> don't call put_container_group() in attach_task() until after
> synchronize_rcu() completes, that implies that a container_group_get()
> from the RCU section would have already completed. So we should be
> fine.


Which make me wonder why we need task_lock() at all ..I can understand
the need for a lock like that if we are reading/updating multiple words
in task_struct under the lock. In this case, it is used to read/write
just one pointer, isnt it? I think it can be eliminated all-together
with the use of RCU.

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: 2007-02-13 06:51    [W:0.184 / U:0.204 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site