lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2011]   [Sep]   [21]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 4/4] posix-timers: turn it_signal into it_valid flag
On Wed, 21 Sep 2011, Thomas Gleixner wrote:

> On Wed, 7 Sep 2011, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > On 09/06, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tue, 6 Sep 2011, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > >
> > > > But how this can help? Suppose that the task is preempted right
> > > > after dequeue_signal() drops ->siglock. We need rcu_read_lock()
> > > > before unlock then, no?
> > >
> > > Crap, you are right, but that's fortunately an easy to solve one :)
> >
> > Yes, this is solvable. But I think we can do something better.
> >
> > > > And. This breaks the accounting logic. I mean the patch from Andi
> > > > which adds the limits.
> > >
> > > That's a different problem and really, it does not break it by any
> > > means. When the timer is released, then the count is decreased and we
> > > can safely assume that the memory is going to be freed in the next
> > > grace period.
> >
> > Yes, but this means we need the counter which we do not have.
> >
> > I think we can avoid this problems. Although I am not sure, I am
> > already sleeping.
> >
> > - we add rcu_read_lock() into dequeueu_signal().
> >
> > - we add the new "struct k_itimer *my_timer" member into
> > siginfo._timer. Like _sys_private it is not passed to
> > user, and perhaps we can kill _sys_private later.
>
> sys_private is ugly as hell and we should avoid to add another field
> to siginfo.
>
> I think we can embed the timer siginfo into k_itimer instead and

That should be sigqeue of course, which has siginfo embedded.

Thanks,

tglx



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2011-09-21 19:59    [W:0.047 / U:13.916 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site