Re: [PATCH RFC] time: drop do_sys_times spinlock
From: Oleg Nesterov
Date: Wed Aug 13 2014 - 14:47:41 EST
On 08/13, Rik van Riel wrote:
> On 08/13/2014 02:08 PM, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > Well, I disagree. This is more complex, and this adds yet another lock
> > which only protects the stats...
> The other lock is what can tell us that there is a writer active
> NOW, which may be useful when it comes to guaranteeing forward
> progress for readers when there are lots of threads exiting...
I don't really understand why seqcount_t is better in this sense, either
way we need to to taking the lock if we want to guarantee a forward
progress. read_seqbegin_or_lock() doesn't even work "automagically",
and it can't be used in this case anyway.
That said, it is not that I am really sure that seqcount_t in ->signal
is actually worse, not to mention that this is subjective anyway. IOW,
I am not going to really fight with your approach ;)
> > Whatever we do, we should convert thread_group_cputime() to use
> > for_each_thread() first().
> What is the advantage of for_each_thread over while_each_thread,
> besides getting rid of that t = tsk line?
It is buggy and should die, see 0c740d0afc3bff0a097ad.
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/