On Mon, Feb 12, 2007 at 11:46:20AM -0800, Paul Menage wrote: > On further reflection, this probably would be safe after all. Since we > don't call put_container_group() in attach_task() until after > synchronize_rcu() completes, that implies that a container_group_get() > from the RCU section would have already completed. So we should be > fine.
Right. Which make me wonder why we need task_lock() at all ..I can understand the need for a lock like that if we are reading/updating multiple words in task_struct under the lock. In this case, it is used to read/write just one pointer, isnt it? I think it can be eliminated all-together with the use of RCU. -- Regards, vatsa ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Using Tomcat but need to do more? Need to support web services, security? Get stuff done quickly with pre-integrated technology to make your job easier. Download IBM WebSphere Application Server v.1.0.1 based on Apache Geronimo http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnk&kid=120709&bid=263057&dat=121642 _______________________________________________ ckrm-tech mailing list https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ckrm-tech
