From: Ravikiran G Thirumalai <kiran@scalex86.org>
To: Christoph Lameter <clameter@engr.sgi.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
"Shai Fultheim (Shai@scalex86.org)" <shai@scalex86.org>,
nippung@calsoftinc.com
Subject: Re: [rfc][patch] Avoid taking global tasklist_lock for single threaded process at getrusage()
Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2005 13:35:28 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20051221213528.GC4514@localhost.localdomain> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.62.0512211318070.3443@schroedinger.engr.sgi.com>
On Wed, Dec 21, 2005 at 01:22:24PM -0800, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Dec 2005, Ravikiran G Thirumalai wrote:
>
> > We did look at that. Cases RUSAGE_CHILDREN and RUSAGE_SELF are always called by the
> > current task, so we can avoid tasklist locking there.
> > getrusage for non-current tasks are always called with RUSAGE_BOTH.
> > We ensure we always take the siglock for RUSAGE_BOTH case, so that the
> > p->signal* fields are protected and take the tasklist_lock only if we have
> > to traverse the tasklist hashlist. Isn't this safe?
>
> Sounds okay. But its complex in the way its is coded now and its easy to
> assume that one can call getrusage with any parameter from inside the
> kernel. Maybe we can have a couple of separate functions
>
> rusage_children()
> rusage_self()
> rusage_both()
>
> ?
>
> Only rusage_both would take a task_struct * parameter. The others would
> only operate on current. Change all the locations that call getrusage with
> RUSAGE_BOTH to call rusage_both().
Yes. This would indeed be better. I will do that change.
Thanks,
Kiran
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2005-12-21 21:35 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2005-12-21 18:23 [rfc][patch] Avoid taking global tasklist_lock for single threaded process at getrusage() Ravikiran G Thirumalai
2005-12-21 20:20 ` Christoph Lameter
2005-12-21 21:11 ` Ravikiran G Thirumalai
2005-12-21 21:22 ` Christoph Lameter
2005-12-21 21:35 ` Ravikiran G Thirumalai [this message]
2005-12-23 23:15 ` Ravikiran G Thirumalai
2005-12-24 0:13 ` Christoph Lameter
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2005-12-24 5:34 Nippun Goel
2005-12-24 17:52 Oleg Nesterov
2005-12-27 20:21 ` Christoph Lameter
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20051221213528.GC4514@localhost.localdomain \
--to=kiran@scalex86.org \
--cc=akpm@osdl.org \
--cc=clameter@engr.sgi.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=nippung@calsoftinc.com \
--cc=shai@scalex86.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox