public inbox for linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
* [PATCH] Reduce cpuset.c write_lock_irq() to read_lock()
@ 2007-05-24  1:23 Paul Menage
  2007-05-24  1:35 ` Paul Jackson
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 2+ messages in thread
From: Paul Menage @ 2007-05-24  1:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: pj, akpm; +Cc: linux-kernel, menage

cpuset.c:update_nodemask() uses a write_lock_irq() on tasklist_lock to
block concurrent forks; a read_lock() suffices and is less intrusive.

Signed-off-by: Paul Menage<menage@google.com>

---
 kernel/cpuset.c |    6 +++---
 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

Index: scratch-2.6.22-rc1-mm1/kernel/cpuset.c
===================================================================
--- scratch-2.6.22-rc1-mm1.orig/kernel/cpuset.c
+++ scratch-2.6.22-rc1-mm1/kernel/cpuset.c
@@ -923,10 +923,10 @@ static int update_nodemask(struct cpuset
 		mmarray = kmalloc(ntasks * sizeof(*mmarray), GFP_KERNEL);
 		if (!mmarray)
 			goto done;
-		write_lock_irq(&tasklist_lock);		/* block fork */
+		read_lock(&tasklist_lock);		/* block fork */
 		if (atomic_read(&cs->count) <= ntasks)
 			break;				/* got enough */
-		write_unlock_irq(&tasklist_lock);	/* try again */
+		read_unlock(&tasklist_lock);	/* try again */
 		kfree(mmarray);
 	}
 
@@ -948,7 +948,7 @@ static int update_nodemask(struct cpuset
 			continue;
 		mmarray[n++] = mm;
 	} while_each_thread(g, p);
-	write_unlock_irq(&tasklist_lock);
+	read_unlock(&tasklist_lock);
 
 	/*
 	 * Now that we've dropped the tasklist spinlock, we can


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 2+ messages in thread

* Re: [PATCH] Reduce cpuset.c write_lock_irq() to read_lock()
  2007-05-24  1:23 [PATCH] Reduce cpuset.c write_lock_irq() to read_lock() Paul Menage
@ 2007-05-24  1:35 ` Paul Jackson
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 2+ messages in thread
From: Paul Jackson @ 2007-05-24  1:35 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Paul Menage; +Cc: akpm, linux-kernel, menage

Paul M wrote:
> cpuset.c:update_nodemask() uses a write_lock_irq() on tasklist_lock to
> block concurrent forks; a read_lock() suffices and is less intrusive.

Seems reasonable to me - thanks.

> -		write_lock_irq(&tasklist_lock);		/* block fork */
> +		read_lock(&tasklist_lock);		/* block fork */
>  		if (atomic_read(&cs->count) <= ntasks)
>  			break;				/* got enough */
> -		write_unlock_irq(&tasklist_lock);	/* try again */
> +		read_unlock(&tasklist_lock);	/* try again */

Too bad you didn't keep the nicely aligned comments aligned ;).

-- 
                  I won't rest till it's the best ...
                  Programmer, Linux Scalability
                  Paul Jackson <pj@sgi.com> 1.925.600.0401

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 2+ messages in thread

end of thread, other threads:[~2007-05-24  1:36 UTC | newest]

Thread overview: 2+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2007-05-24  1:23 [PATCH] Reduce cpuset.c write_lock_irq() to read_lock() Paul Menage
2007-05-24  1:35 ` Paul Jackson

This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox