Re: [PATCH 4/4] posix-timers: turn it_signal into it_valid flag

[Thomas Gleixner]

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
 
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/