lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2010]   [Aug]   [4]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    SubjectRe: [PATCH v4 1/2] cgroups: read-write lock CLONE_THREAD forking per threadgroup
    From
    On Tue, Aug 3, 2010 at 9:33 PM, Ben Blum <bblum@andrew.cmu.edu> wrote:
    >> 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.

    Either sounds fine to me. I suspect others have a stronger opinion.

    Paul


    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2010-08-04 06:37    [W:0.029 / U:60.560 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site