[lkml]   [2009]   [Dec]   [7]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [rfc] "fair" rw spinlocks
On Mon, 2009-12-07 at 19:32 +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 12/05, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> >
> > Atomically sending signal to every member of a process group, is the
> > big fly in the ointment I am aware of. Last time I looked I could
> > not see how to convert it rcu.
> I am not sure, but iirc we can do this lockless (under rcu_lock).
> We need to modify pid_link to use list_entry and attach_pid() should
> add the new task to the end. Of course we need more changes, but
> (again iirc) this is not too hard.
> > This is a pain because we occasionally signal a process group from
> > interrupt context.
> Only send_sigio/etc does so, right?
> I didn't read the previous discussion yet (will try tomorrow), sorry
> if I am off-topic. But I think the nastiest problem with tasklist
> is that it protects parent/child relationship. We need per-process
> lock, but first we should change ptrace to avoid this lock somehow.
> (this is one of the goals of ptrace-utrace, but not "immediate").

Didn't Thomas and you also come up with a scheme to push most signal
processing into task context?

 \ /
  Last update: 2009-12-07 21:41    [W:0.118 / U:0.260 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site