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    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans