lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2011]   [Oct]   [14]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 2/2] cgroups: convert ss->attach to use whole threadgroup flex_array (cpuset, memcontrol)
On Fri, Oct 14, 2011 at 09:53:23AM -0400, Ben Blum wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 14, 2011 at 02:21:30PM +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 08:36:01PM -0400, Ben Blum wrote:
> > > Convert ss->attach to take a flex_array of tasks instead of just the leader.
> > >
> > > From: Ben Blum <bblum@andrew.cmu.edu>
> > >
> > > This lets subsystems with whole-threadgroup attach calls (i.e., cpuset and
> > > memcontrol) to accurately find the group's mm even when a non-leader does exec
> > > and leaves the leader with a NULL mm pointer.
> > >
> > > Also converts cpuset and memcontrol to take the flex_array and iterate down it
> > > until an mm is found, instead of just attempting to use the leader's mm.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Ben Blum <bblum@andrew.cmu.edu>
> >
> > I think there are patches from Tejun that handle that did that already?
> >
> > https://lkml.org/lkml/2011/8/23/418
> >
>
> Yeah, I'm not hoping to preempt them or anything; I'm just presenting
> this alternate approach, since (1) this way addresses the ss->attach()
> problem directly without needing to add locking anywhere else, while the
> focus of the discussion around Tejun's patches seems to have moved to
> more global concerns, and (2) these patches and his patches ought to be
> compatible with each other.

though, I did wonder if, given this approach, I shouldn't just get rid
of attach_task and can_attach_task and use the flex_array for all of
the calls. would that be nicer?

>
> Ben
>


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2011-10-14 16:01    [W:0.051 / U:44.620 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site