On Wed, 7 Jan 2009, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> >
> > "Is get_task_struct() really that bad?"
>
> Yes. It's an atomic access (two, in fact, since you need to release it
> too), which is a huge deal if we're talking about a timing-critical
> section of code.
There's another issue: you also need to lock the thing that gives you the
task pointer in the first place. So it's not sufficient to do
get_task_struct(), you also need to do it within a context where you know
that the pointer is not going away _while_ you do it.
And with the mutexes clearing the ->owner field without even holding the
spinlock, that is not a guarantee we can easily get any way. Maybe we'd
need to hold the tasklist_lock or something.
Linus
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
