>>What about this minimal patch? The performance critical operation is
>>signal delivery - we should fix the synchronization between signal
>>delivery and exec first.
>The patch looks ok, although I'd also remove the locking and testing from
>collect_sigign_sigcatch() once it is done at a higher level.
>And yeah, what about signal delivery? Put back the same lock there?
I don't know.
Taking read_lock(&tasklist_lock) for send_specific_sig_info might hurt
If we do not want a global lock, then we have two options:
- make task_lock an interrupt spinlock.
- add a second spinlock to the task structure, for the signal stuff.
Design question - what's worse? Memory bloat or a few additional
I don't care - no performance critical codepaths.
Additionally many task_lock()/task_unlock users could be replaced with
spin_unlock_wait(&task->alloc_lock), which would not need the
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to email@example.com More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/