lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2010]   [Aug]   [4]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v4 1/2] cgroups: read-write lock CLONE_THREAD forking per threadgroup
On Tue, Aug 03, 2010 at 08:44:01PM -0700, Paul Menage wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 30, 2010 at 4:57 PM, Ben Blum <bblum@andrew.cmu.edu> wrote:
> > + * The threadgroup_fork_lock prevents threads from forking with
> > + * CLONE_THREAD while held for writing. Use this for fork-sensitive
> > + * threadgroup-wide operations. It's taken for reading in fork.c in
> > + * copy_process().
> > + * Currently only needed write-side by cgroups.
> > + */
> > + struct rw_semaphore threadgroup_fork_lock;
> > +#endif
>
> I'm not sure how best to word this comment, but I'd prefer something like:
>
> "The threadgroup_fork_lock is taken in read mode during a CLONE_THREAD
> fork operation; taking it in write mode prevents the owning
> threadgroup from adding any new threads and thus allows you to
> synchronize against the addition of unseen threads when performing
> threadgroup-wide operations. New-process forks (without CLONE_THREAD)
> are not affected."

That sounds good.

> As far as the #ifdef mess goes, it's true that some people don't have
> CONFIG_CGROUPS defined. I'd imagine that these are likely to be
> embedded systems with a fairly small number of processes and threads
> per process. Are there really any such platforms where the cost of a
> single extra rwsem per process is going to make a difference either in
> terms of memory or lock contention? I think you should consider making
> these additions unconditional.

That's certainly an option, but I think it would be clean enough to put
static inline functions just under the signal_struct definition.
Thoughts?

>
> Paul
>

-- Ben


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2010-08-04 06:37    [W:0.258 / U:0.360 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site