From: Roland McGrath <roland@redhat.com>
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
Cc: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@gmail.com>,
"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@xmission.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH -mm 3/3] proc: make task_sig() lockless
Date: Mon, 12 Apr 2010 23:30:13 -0700 (PDT) [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20100413063013.A0759B06B@magilla.sf.frob.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: Oleg Nesterov's message of Monday, 12 April 2010 21:50:42 +0200 <20100412195042.GA14108@redhat.com>
> Yes, /proc/pid/status can report the intermediate state, I even sent
> the updated changelog to document this.
>
> But if you are not sure this is OK, I am worried. Do you think we should
> drop this patch? If yes, I won't argue.
I'm not dead-set against it, but I am hesitant. My inclination is not to
remove any previous userland atomicity guarantees with regard to observable
signal state in any form. At least, don't do that in part of a whole
cleanup flurry where it is intermixed with lots of changes that really are
pure cleanup with absolutely no userland-observable change. If it really
helps to fragment what was atomic before, then we can consider it. But
let's not be in a hurry.
David mentioned that users who do multiple reads due to using tiny buffers
already don't get atomic sampling. That is certainly true but I don't
think it's relevant. It is completely reliable that you can easily
allocate a buffer big enough to get all the Sig* fields on the first read,
and any user program that might care about the coherence of the data,
by definition, is already doing that.
Thanks,
Roland
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-04-13 6:31 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2010-03-22 18:41 Oleg Nesterov
2010-03-23 8:30 ` David Howells
2010-03-23 8:37 ` David Howells
2010-03-23 10:57 ` Oleg Nesterov
2010-04-09 19:59 ` Roland McGrath
2010-04-12 19:50 ` Oleg Nesterov
2010-04-13 6:30 ` Roland McGrath [this message]
2010-04-13 20:00 ` Oleg Nesterov
2010-04-10 8:16 ` David Howells
2010-03-24 8:37 ` David Howells
2010-03-24 15:00 ` Oleg Nesterov
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=20100413063013.A0759B06B@magilla.sf.frob.com \
--to=roland@redhat.com \
--cc=adobriyan@gmail.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=dhowells@redhat.com \
--cc=ebiederm@xmission.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=oleg@redhat.com \
/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®