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?
next prev parent 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®