Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sat, 6 Oct 2007 14:11:43 -0700 | From | "Paul Menage" <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] task containersv11 add tasks file interface fix for cpusets |
| |
On 10/6/07, David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com> wrote: > The getting and putting of the tasks will prevent them from exiting or > being deallocated prematurely. But this is also a critical section that > will need to be protected by some mutex so it doesn't race with other > set_cpus_allowed().
Is that necessary? If some other process calls set_cpus_allowed() concurrently with a cpuset cpus update, it's not clear that there's any defined serialization semantics that have to be achieved, as long as the end result is that the task's cpus_allowed are within the cpuset's cpus_allowed.
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/
| |