Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 6 Aug 2010 02:02:24 -0400 | From | Ben Blum <> | Subject | Re: [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
| |