Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1759285AbXLUXc2 (ORCPT ); Fri, 21 Dec 2007 18:32:28 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1754308AbXLUXcW (ORCPT ); Fri, 21 Dec 2007 18:32:22 -0500 Received: from ns.suse.de ([195.135.220.2]:53801 "EHLO mx1.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752627AbXLUXcV (ORCPT ); Fri, 21 Dec 2007 18:32:21 -0500 To: "Jan Beulich" Cc: Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] add task handling notifier: base definitions From: Andi Kleen References: <476A7832.76E4.0078.0@novell.com> Date: Sat, 22 Dec 2007 00:32:20 +0100 In-Reply-To: <476A7832.76E4.0078.0@novell.com> (Jan Beulich's message of "Thu\, 20 Dec 2007 13\:12\:02 +0000") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.1 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 977 Lines: 25 "Jan Beulich" writes: > This is the base patch, adding notification for task creation and > deletion. I like the basic concept. At some point I suspect we'll even need a per task dynamic data allocator, that would remove even more cruft. Could you change the block notifier calls first to not take their lock when there is nothing in the list (the common case)? It is weird that they don't already do this, but they should definitely here. I think the use of the blocking/atomic notifiers needs some comment. I think I understand why you did it -- exit atomic because sleeping in exit can be illegal and blocking for fork to allow GFP_KERNEL allocations -- but that should be documented somewhere. -Andi -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/