Cc'ing Oleg who iirc also like this stuff.
On Sat, 02 May 2020, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
On Fri, May 01, 2020 at 08:05:39PM -0700, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
For both setpriority(2) and getpriority(2) there's really no need
to be taking the tasklist_lock at all - for which both share it
for the
On Fri, May 01, 2020 at 08:05:39PM -0700, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
> For both setpriority(2) and getpriority(2) there's really no need
> to be taking the tasklist_lock at all - for which both share it
> for the entirety of the syscall. The tasklist_lock does not protect
> reading/writing the
For both setpriority(2) and getpriority(2) there's really no need
to be taking the tasklist_lock at all - for which both share it
for the entirety of the syscall. The tasklist_lock does not protect
reading/writing the p->static_prio and task lookups are already rcu
safe, providing a stable
3 matches
Mail list logo