Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 8 Mar 2007 02:40:30 -0800 | From | "Paul Menage" <> | Subject | Re: [ckrm-tech] [PATCH 1/7] containers (V7): Generic container system abstracted from cpusets code |
| |
On 3/8/07, Srivatsa Vaddagiri <vatsa@in.ibm.com> wrote: > On Wed, Mar 07, 2007 at 12:50:03PM -0800, Paul Menage wrote: > > 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. > > Why can't manage_mutex itself be used there (to serialize fork/exit callbacks > against modification to hierarchy)?
Because manage_mutex can be held for very long periods of time. I think that a combination of a new lock that's only taken by fork/exit and register_subsys, plus task_lock (which prevents the current task from being moved) would be more lightweight.
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/
| |