Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 03/14, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>> Pavel Emelianov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>>> Hi.
>>>
>>> I'm looking at how alloc_pid() works and can't understand
>>> one (simple/stupid) thing.
>>>
>>> It first kmem_cache_alloc()-s a strct pid, then calls
>>> alloc_pidmap() and at the end it taks a global pidmap_lock()
>>> to add new pid to hash.
>
> We need some global lock. pidmap_lock is already here, and it is
> only used to protect pidmap->page allocation. Iow, it is almost
> unused. So it was very natural to re-use it while implementing
> pidrefs.
>
>>> The question is - why does alloc_pidmap() use at least
>>> two atomic ops and potentially loop to find a zero bit
>>> in pidmap? Why not call alloc_pidmap() under pidmap_lock
>>> and find zero pid in pidmap w/o any loops and atomics?
>
> Currently we search for zero bit lockless, why do you want
> to do it under spin_lock ?
Search isn't lockless. Look:
while (1) {
if (!test_and_set_bit(...)) {
atomic_dec(&nr_free);
return pid;
}
...
}
we use two atomic operations to find and set a bit in a map.
> Oleg.
>
>
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
