lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2010]   [Aug]   [6]   [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 09:34:22PM -0700, Paul Menage wrote:
    > 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
    >

    Any other votes? One set of static inline functions (I'd call them
    threadgroup_fork_{read,write}_{un,}lock) or just remove the ifdefs
    entirely? I'm inclined to go with the former.

    -- Ben


    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2010-08-06 08:07    [W:6.733 / U:0.008 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site