![]() | |||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
On 3/7/07, Srivatsa Vaddagiri <vatsa@in.ibm.com> wrote: > If that is the case, I think we can push container_lock entirely inside > cpuset.c and not have others exposed to this double-lock complexity. > This is possible because cpuset.c (build on top of containers) still has > cpuset->parent and walking cpuset->parent list safely can be made > possible with a second lock which is local to only cpuset.c. > The callback mutex (which is what container_lock() actually locks) is also used to synchronize fork/exit against subsystem additions, in the event that some subsystem has registered fork or exit callbacks. We could probably have a separate subsystem_mutex for that instead. Apart from that, yes, it may well be possible to move callback lock entirely inside cpusets. Paul - 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/ | ||||||||||
| Last update: 2007-03-07 21:53 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||