>> Can you please explain why we should use seqlock? That said, >> we didn't use seqlock for /proc items. because, plenty seqlock >> write may makes readers busy wait. Then, if we don't have another >> protection, we give the local DoS attack way to attackers. > > So you're saying that heavy write contention can cause reader > starvation? Yes. >> task->comm is used for very fundamentally. then, I doubt we can >> assume write is enough rare. Why can't we use normal spinlock? > > I think writes are likely to be fairly rare. Tasks can only name > themselves or sibling threads, so I'm not sure I see the risk here. reader starvation may cause another task's starvation if reader have an another lock. And, "only sibling" don't make any security gurantee as I said past. Thanks. -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxx For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Fight unfair telecom internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/ Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>