lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2008]   [Jul]   [9]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [PATCH 0/4] Container Freezer: Reuse Suspend Freezer
    On Wed, 09 Jul 2008 14:58:43 -0700
    Matt Helsley <matthltc@us.ibm.com> wrote:

    >
    > On Tue, 2008-07-08 at 13:07 -0700, Paul Menage wrote:
    > > On Tue, Jul 8, 2008 at 1:06 PM, Paul Menage <menage@google.com> wrote:
    > > > On Tue, Jul 8, 2008 at 12:39 PM, Matt Helsley <matthltc@us.ibm.com> wrote:
    > > >>
    > > >> One is to try and disallow users from moving frozen tasks. That doesn't
    > > >> seem like a good approach since it would require a new cgroups interface
    > > >> "can_detach()".
    > > >
    > > > Detaching from the old cgroup happens at the same time as attaching to
    > > > the new cgroup, so can_attach() would work here.
    >
    > Update: I've made a patch implementing this. However it might be better
    > to just modify attach() to thaw the moving task rather than disallow
    > moving the frozen task. Serge, Cedric, Kame-san, do you have any
    > thoughts on which is more useful and/or intuitive?
    >

    Thank you for explanation in previous mail.

    Hmm, just thawing seems atractive but it will confuse people (I think).

    I think some kind of process-group is freezed by this freezer and "moving
    freezed task" is wrong(unexpected) operation in general. And there will
    be no demand to do that from users.
    I think just taking "moving freezed task" as error-operation and returning
    -EBUSY is better.

    Thanks,
    -Kame

    > > And the whole can_attach()/attach() protocol needs reworking anyway,
    > > see my email (hopefully) later today.
    > >
    > > Paul
    >
    > Interesting. I look forward to seeing this.
    >
    > Cheers,
    > -Matt
    >
    >



    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2008-07-10 02:41    [W:0.024 / U:0.512 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site