On Sun, Nov 14, 2010 at 4:15 PM, Linus Torvalds
<torvalds@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
quoted text
>
> THAT is why I think it's so silly to try to be so strict and walk over
> all processes while holding a couple of spinlocks.

Btw, let me say that I think the patch is great even with that thing
in. It looks clean, the thing I'm complaining about is not a big deal,
and it seems to perform very much as advertized. The difference with
autogroup scheduling is very noticeable with a simple "make -j64"
kernel compile.

So I really don't think it's a big deal. The sysctl handler isn't even
complicated. But boy does it hurt my eyes to see a spinlock held
around a "do_each_thread()". And I do get the feeling that the
simplest way to fix it would be to just remove the code entirely, and
just say that "enabling/disabling may be delayed for old processes
with existing autogroups".

                    Linus
--
unsubscribe notice
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/