On Sat, Jan 12, 2013 at 9:31 AM, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 01/09, Michel Lespinasse wrote:
>> >> - Would there be any fundamental objection to implementing a fair
>> >> rwlock_t and dealing with the reentrancy issues in tasklist_lock ? My
>> >> proposal there would be along the lines of:
>> >
>> >
On 01/09, Michel Lespinasse wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 9:49 AM, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > On 01/08, Michel Lespinasse wrote:
> >> Like others before me, I have discovered how easy it is to DOS a
> >> system by abusing the rwlock_t unfairness and causing the
> >> tasklist_lock read side to be
On Tue, 8 Jan 2013, Michel Lespinasse wrote:
> - Does anyone know of any current work towards removing the
> tasklist_lock use of rwlock_t ? Thomas Gleixner mentioned 3 years ago
> that he'd give it a shot (https://lwn.net/Articles/364601/), did he
> encounter some unforeseen difficulty that we sho
On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 9:49 AM, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 01/08, Michel Lespinasse wrote:
>> Like others before me, I have discovered how easy it is to DOS a
>> system by abusing the rwlock_t unfairness and causing the
>> tasklist_lock read side to be continuously held
>
> Yes. Plus it has perfoma
On 01/08, Michel Lespinasse wrote:
>
> Like others before me, I have discovered how easy it is to DOS a
> system by abusing the rwlock_t unfairness and causing the
> tasklist_lock read side to be continuously held
Yes. Plus it has perfomance problems.
It should die. We still need the global lock
5 matches
Mail list logo