From: Hugh Dickins <hugh@veritas.com>
To: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@us.ibm.com>
Cc: mingo@elte.hu, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, tytso@us.ibm.com,
sripathi@in.ibm.com, dipankar@in.ibm.com, oleg@tv-sign.ru
Subject: Re: [RFC,PATCH] RCUify single-thread case of clock_gettime()
Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2005 18:08:51 +0000 (GMT) [thread overview]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.61.0510311802550.9631@goblin.wat.veritas.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20051031174416.GA2762@us.ibm.com>
On Mon, 31 Oct 2005, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
>
> The attached patch uses RCU to avoid the need to acquire tasklist_lock
> in the single-thread case of clock_gettime(). Still acquires tasklist_lock
> when asking for the time of a (potentially multithreaded) process.
>
> Experimental, has been touch-tested on x86 and POWER. Requires RCU on
> task_struct. Further more focused testing in progress.
>
> Thoughts? (Why? Some off-list users want to be able to monitor CPU
> consumption of specific threads. They need to do so quite frequently,
> so acquiring tasklist_lock is inappropriate.)
Not my area at all, but this looks really dodgy to me, Paul:
could you explain it further?
First off, I don't see what's "RCU" about it at all. Essentially,
you're replacing read_lock(&tasklist_lock) by preempt_disable(),
but calling it by the fancier rcu_read_lock() alias. I thought there
would need to be some more infrastructure to make this RCU and safe?
Hugh
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2005-10-31 18:09 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2005-10-31 17:44 Paul E. McKenney
2005-10-31 18:08 ` Hugh Dickins [this message]
2005-10-31 19:54 ` Ingo Molnar
2005-10-31 20:07 ` Hugh Dickins
2005-10-31 21:50 ` Ingo Molnar
2005-10-31 19:37 ` Joe Seigh
2005-10-31 21:44 ` Ingo Molnar
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=Pine.LNX.4.61.0510311802550.9631@goblin.wat.veritas.com \
--to=hugh@veritas.com \
--cc=dipankar@in.ibm.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=oleg@tv-sign.ru \
--cc=paulmck@us.ibm.com \
--cc=sripathi@in.ibm.com \
--cc=tytso@us.ibm.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®