Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 17 Feb 2006 00:16:31 +0300 | From | Oleg Nesterov <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 1/2] fix kill_proc_info() vs CLONE_THREAD race |
| |
"Paul E. McKenney" wrote: > > > After that we don't need tasklist_lock to iterate over the thread > > list, and we can simplify things, see for example do_sigaction() > > or sys_times(). > > The above proposal would require that we hold siglock during the > traversal, correct?
Yes, of course.
> Is that reasonable for non-signal-related traversals? > Or were you thinking of making this change only for signal code?
Yes, I think it may be useful for non-signal-related traversals.
Currently we need tasklist_lock in order to use next_thread(). I beleive, we can migrate to rcu_read_lock+spinlock(sighand) in most cases.
Well, next_thread() itself is safe already, but it can return already zapped threads.
Oleg. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |