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. 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/