Hello Oleg, On Mon, 2010-11-29 at 17:43 +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote: > > I just did it like it is done in e.g. fs/proc/base.c (proc_pid_limits). > > Can we remove the locking there, too? > > We can certainly remove more siglock's which were previously > needed to access ->signal. > > This particular one is just wrong. We need task_lock(group_leader) > to read signal->rlim atomically. However, it is not trivial to do > this correctly. Probably we should ignore this minor problem. > > In any case, this ->siglock buys nothing today. But at least to get the two values cutime and cstime consistent we need the siglock? There could be a parallel update for tsk->signal->cutime/cstime, while the taskstats are created, no? Michael -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-s390" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
