On 11/29, Michael Holzheu wrote: > > 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? I guess you mean 4/4 you sent. Probably you are right, I'll try to look tomorrow. Oleg. -- 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
