mirror of https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, mingo@elte.hu
Subject: Re: [patch 1/3] Drop tasklist lock in do_sched_setscheduler
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2006 18:48:50 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20060622184850.29e26ce6.akpm@osdl.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20060622082812.492564000@cruncher.tec.linutronix.de>

On Thu, 22 Jun 2006 09:08:38 -0000
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> wrote:

> 
> There is no need to hold tasklist_lock across the setscheduler call, when we
> pin the task structure with get_task_struct(). Interrupts are disabled in 
> setscheduler anyway and the permission checks do not need interrupts disabled.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
> Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
> 
>  kernel/sched.c |    4 +++-
>  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> Index: linux-2.6.17-mm/kernel/sched.c
> ===================================================================
> --- linux-2.6.17-mm.orig/kernel/sched.c	2006-06-22 10:26:11.000000000 +0200
> +++ linux-2.6.17-mm/kernel/sched.c	2006-06-22 10:26:11.000000000 +0200
> @@ -4140,8 +4140,10 @@
>  		read_unlock_irq(&tasklist_lock);
>  		return -ESRCH;
>  	}
> -	retval = sched_setscheduler(p, policy, &lparam);
> +	get_task_struct(p);
>  	read_unlock_irq(&tasklist_lock);
> +	retval = sched_setscheduler(p, policy, &lparam);
> +	put_task_struct(p);
>  	return retval;
>  }
>  

Is this optimisation actually related to the rt-mutex patches, or to the
other two patches?


  reply	other threads:[~2006-06-23  1:49 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 17+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2006-06-22  9:08 [patch 0/3] rtmutex: Propagate priority setting into lock chains Thomas Gleixner
2006-06-22  9:08 ` [patch 1/3] Drop tasklist lock in do_sched_setscheduler Thomas Gleixner
2006-06-23  1:48   ` Andrew Morton [this message]
2006-06-23  6:01     ` Thomas Gleixner
2006-06-24  8:07   ` Andrew Morton
2006-06-24  8:25     ` Thomas Gleixner
2006-06-22  9:08 ` [patch 2/3] rtmutex: Propagate priority settings into PI lock chains Thomas Gleixner
2006-06-22 14:20   ` Steven Rostedt
2006-06-22 18:02     ` Esben Nielsen
2006-06-23  6:27       ` Steven Rostedt
2006-06-23  2:08     ` Andrew Morton
2006-06-23  9:28       ` [PATCH -mm] bug if setscheduler is called from interrupt context Steven Rostedt
2006-06-23  2:06   ` [patch 2/3] rtmutex: Propagate priority settings into PI lock chains Andrew Morton
2006-06-23 16:26     ` Thomas Gleixner
2006-06-22  9:08 ` [patch 3/3] rtmutex: Modify rtmutex-tester to test the setscheduler propagation Thomas Gleixner
2006-06-25  0:50 [patch 1/3] Drop tasklist lock in do_sched_setscheduler Oleg Nesterov
2006-06-25 15:35 ` Thomas Gleixner

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20060622184850.29e26ce6.akpm@osdl.org \
    --to=akpm@osdl.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mingo@elte.hu \
    --cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox

all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®