On Thu, 4 Dec 2008, Dave Hansen wrote: > > > > We probably should. Historically read_lock(&tasklist_lock) implies > > rcu_read_lock(). And the tasklist lock is what we hold when it is > > safe. > > So, Dipankar tells me that you really do need rcu_read_lock/unlock() for > the guarantee here; the tasklist lock is not sufficient. The realtime > kernel will preempt even those sections covered by spinlocks. Yes it will. -- Steve _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
