pagg
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [patch] Minor PAGG attach/detach semantic change for 2.6.11

To: Kaigai Kohei <kaigai@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [patch] Minor PAGG attach/detach semantic change for 2.6.11
From: Erik Jacobson <erikj@xxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2005 09:02:13 -0500
Cc: Erik Jacobson <erikj@xxxxxxx>, Kingsley Cheung <kingsley@xxxxxxxxxx>, pagg@xxxxxxxxxxx, tonyt@xxxxxxxxxx, paulmck@xxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <433B80B6.2010604@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <20050617014512.GA10285@xxxxxxxxxx> <20050927201020.GA30433@xxxxxxx> <433A7FE4.5040109@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20050928141831.GA24110@xxxxxxx> <433B80B6.2010604@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: pagg-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.6i
> In fork-hook, scaning the parent's list is indeed read-only.
> But exit-hook contains writing-operations like list_del_rcu(),
> thus something locking is required.
> Probably, the ratio of readonly-pass and writable-pass might be
> about 49.9%:50.1%. (Although I didn't actually measure it.)

I guess if all tasks have subscribers, this could be true...  Even in
Job, not all tasks have subscribers although I admit that if you are using
it with PAM so each login starts a new job...  most would.

I tried to send what I had so far twice yesterday but the list server is
eating it for some reason.  Someone is going to check in to the list
server configuration today.

I'll respond to more of your post later.

Erik

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>