On 01/11, Michel Lespinasse wrote:
>
> So I looked again at getpriority() since that's what I had used for my
> DOS test code, and it looks like everything there is already protected
> by RCU or smaller granularity locks and refcounts. Patch attached to
> remove this tasklist_lock usage.
And probably the change in getpriority() is fine, but ...
> @@ -189,7 +189,6 @@ SYSCALL_DEFINE3(setpriority, int, which, int, who, int,
> niceval)
> niceval = 19;
>
> rcu_read_lock();
> - read_lock(&tasklist_lock);
> switch (which) {
> case PRIO_PROCESS:
> if (who)
> @@ -226,7 +225,6 @@ SYSCALL_DEFINE3(setpriority, int, which, int, who, int,
> niceval)
> break;
> }
> out_unlock:
> - read_unlock(&tasklist_lock);
you also changed setpriority(), this should be documented at least ;)
OK. Even without this change, say, sys_setpriority(PRIO_PGRP) can obviously
race with fork(), so this change probably is not bad.
Oleg.
--
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/
