Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sun, 13 Feb 2011 18:22:15 +0530 | From | Balbir Singh <> | Subject | Re: [RFC][PATCH] cgroup: Fix cgroup_subsys::exit callback |
| |
* Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> [2011-02-07 17:10:33]:
> On Thu, 2011-02-03 at 00:32 +0530, Balbir Singh wrote: > > > No, just fixed. The callback as it exists isn't useful and leads to > > > hacks like the above. > > --- > Subject: cgroup: Fix cgroup_subsys::exit callback > From: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl> > Date: Mon Feb 07 17:02:20 CET 2011 > > Make the ::exit method act like ::attach, it is after all very nearly > the same thing. > > Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl> > LKML-Reference: <new-submission> > --- > Index: linux-2.6/include/linux/cgroup.h > =================================================================== > --- linux-2.6.orig/include/linux/cgroup.h > +++ linux-2.6/include/linux/cgroup.h > @@ -474,7 +474,8 @@ struct cgroup_subsys { > struct cgroup *old_cgrp, struct task_struct *tsk, > bool threadgroup); > void (*fork)(struct cgroup_subsys *ss, struct task_struct *task); > - void (*exit)(struct cgroup_subsys *ss, struct task_struct *task); > + void (*exit)(struct cgroup_subsys *ss, struct cgroup *cgrp, > + struct cgroup *old_cgrp, struct task_struct *task);
The effective change I see
1. mutex_lock() being held 2. Old cgroup being passed as a part of the notification
Is 1 required? I don't see anything in the changelog. For (2), I don't see it being used, is the use in the scheduler cgroup path/patch?
-- Three Cheers, Balbir
| |