Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 7 Mar 2007 08:12:20 -0800 | From | "Paul Menage" <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 2/7] containers (V7): Cpusets hooked into containers |
| |
On 3/7/07, Srivatsa Vaddagiri <vatsa@in.ibm.com> wrote: > On Mon, Feb 12, 2007 at 12:15:23AM -0800, menage@google.com wrote: > > - mutex_lock(&callback_mutex); > > - list_add(&cs->sibling, &cs->parent->children); > > + cont->cpuset = cs; > > + cs->container = cont; > > number_of_cpusets++; > > - mutex_unlock(&callback_mutex); > > What's the rule to read/write number_of_cpusets? The earlier cpuset code was > incrementing/decrementing under callback_mutex, but now we aren't. How safe is > that?
We're still inside manage_mutex, so we guarantee that no-one else is changing it.
> > The earlier cpuset code also was reading number_of_cpusets w/o the > callback_mutex held (atleast in cpuset_zone_allowed_softwall). Is that safe?
Yes, I think so. Unless every memory allocator was to hold a lock for the duration of alloc_pages(), number_of_cpusets can theoretically be out of date by the time you're using it. But since the process could have allocated just before you created the first cpuset and moved it into that cpuset anywa, it's not really a race (and the consequences are inconsequential).
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/
| |