Le mercredi 01 février 2012 à 14:56 +0800, Li Zefan a écrit :
> We've already used rcu_read_lock/unlock inside task_classid(),
> so don't use the lock/unlock pair twice in this hot path.
>
> Signed-off-by: Li Zefan <lizf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> net/core/sock.c | 2 --
> 1 files changed, 0 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/net/core/sock.c b/net/core/sock.c
> index 213c856..c0bab23 100644
> --- a/net/core/sock.c
> +++ b/net/core/sock.c
> @@ -1160,9 +1160,7 @@ void sock_update_classid(struct sock *sk)
> {
> u32 classid;
>
> - rcu_read_lock(); /* doing current task, which cannot vanish. */
> classid = task_cls_classid(current);
> - rcu_read_unlock();
> if (classid && classid != sk->sk_classid)
> sk->sk_classid = classid;
Yes, this seems fine.
Then, I wonder why we do the "if (classid && classid != sk->sk_classid)"
before the :
sk->sk_classid = classid;
This seems unnecessary checks.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe cgroups" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
