Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 25 Aug 2010 08:58:43 +0900 | From | KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 1/5] cgroup: ID notification call back |
| |
On Tue, 24 Aug 2010 17:04:52 +0800 Li Zefan <lizf@cn.fujitsu.com> wrote:
> KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote: > > CC'ed to Paul Menage and Li Zefan. > > == > > From: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> > > > > When cgroup subsystem use ID (ss->use_id==1), each css's ID is assigned > > after successful call of ->create(). css_ID is tightly coupled with > > css struct itself but it is allocated by ->create() call, IOW, > > per-subsystem special allocations. > > > > To know css_id before creation, this patch adds id_attached() callback. > > after css_ID allocation. This will be used by memory cgroup's quick lookup > > routine. > > > > Maybe you can think of other implementations as > > - pass ID to ->create() > > or > > - add post_create() > > etc... > > But when considering dirtiness of codes, this straightforward patch seems > > good to me. If someone wants post_create(), this patch can be replaced. > > > > Changelog: 20100820 > > - new approarch. > > > > Signed-off-by: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> > > Acked-by: Li Zefan <lizf@cn.fujitsu.com> > > ... > > > > Index: mmotm-0811/include/linux/cgroup.h > > =================================================================== > > --- mmotm-0811.orig/include/linux/cgroup.h > > +++ mmotm-0811/include/linux/cgroup.h > > @@ -475,6 +475,7 @@ struct cgroup_subsys { > > struct cgroup *cgrp); > > void (*post_clone)(struct cgroup_subsys *ss, struct cgroup *cgrp); > > void (*bind)(struct cgroup_subsys *ss, struct cgroup *root); > > + void (*id_attached)(struct cgroup_subsys *ss, struct cgroup *cgrp); > > Maybe pass the id number to id_attached() is better. > ok.
> And actually the @ss argument is not necessary, because the memcg's > id_attached() handler of course knows it's dealing with the memory > cgroup subsystem. > > So I suspect we can just remove all the @ss from all the callbacks.. >
I agree. But could you write "remove ss" patch later ? It seems an design change. I leave "ss" as this for now.
Thanks -Kame
| |