Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 14 Oct 2011 17:22:20 +0200 | From | Frederic Weisbecker <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 2/2] cgroups: convert ss->attach to use whole threadgroup flex_array (cpuset, memcontrol) |
| |
On Fri, Oct 14, 2011 at 09:54:57AM -0400, Ben Blum wrote: > 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?
That's what Tejun's patches do.
| |