On Sat, 2003-08-02 at 01:20, Ulrich Drepper wrote:
> Your approach with iterating over the threads is not acceptable (at
> least to me).
I've noticed that postings with patches get paid a lot more attention to
those without. It was just the patch I used to prove to myself what the
problem is.
> It is racy (concurrent runs are not synchronized)
Erm, it's protected by tasklist_lock, so that isn't a problem.
> and has
> a non-constant time. We've sketched out already a mechanism which
> solves to problem. Basically, most of the time the value from the
> thread group leader is used (just follow the pointer). Then setting the
> value is an atomic operation an constant.
I was considering that, but it needs changes all over the place where
people look at current->pgrp. This way makes for a clearer patch.
J
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Aug 07 2003 - 22:00:18 EST