On 08/18/2014 12:44 AM, Mike Galbraith wrote:
On Sat, 2014-08-16 at 19:50 +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
On 08/16, Rik van Riel wrote:
+ do {
+ seq = nextseq;
+ read_seqbegin_or_lock(&sig->stats_lock, &seq);
+ times->utime = sig->utime;
+ times->stime = sig->stime;
+ times->sum_exec_runtime = sig->sum_sched_runtime;
+
+ for_each_thread(tsk, t) {
+ task_cputime(t, &utime, &stime);
+ times->utime += utime;
+ times->stime += stime;
+ times->sum_exec_runtime += task_sched_runtime(t);
+ }
+ /* If lockless access failed, take the lock. */
+ nextseq = 1;
Yes, thanks, this answers my concerns.
Cough... can't resist, and I still think that we should take rcu_read_lock()
only around for_each_thread() and the patch expands the critical section for
no reason. But this is minor, I won't insist.
Hm. Should traversal not also disable preemption to preserve the error
bound Peter mentioned?
The second traversal takes the spinlock, which automatically
disables preemption.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
