linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH -mm] Hook up group scheduler with control groups

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Thu, 27 Sep 2007 16:42:41 -0700
From:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Dhaval Giani <dhaval@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc:	randy.dunlap@...cle.com, vatsa@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, mingo@...e.hu,
	dmitry.adamushko@...il.com, efault@....de,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, containers@...ts.osdl.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH -mm] Hook up group scheduler with control groups

On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 01:05:12 +0530
Dhaval Giani <dhaval@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:

> On Thu, Sep 27, 2007 at 12:00:33PM -0700, Randy Dunlap wrote:
> > On Thu, 27 Sep 2007 23:34:15 +0530 Dhaval Giani wrote:
> > > 
> > > 
> > > +config RESOURCE_COUNTERS
> > > +	bool "Resource counters"
> > > +	help
> > > +	  This option enables controller independent resource accounting
> > 
> > Above line is tab + 2 spaces (i.e., correct).
> > 
> > > +          infrastructure that works with cgroups.
> > 
> > Above line indent is 10 spaces (i.e., not correct).
> > 
> 
> Ah! Thanks for the explanation. Corrected patch follows.
> 
> Signed-off-by : Srivatsa Vaddagiri <vatsa@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
> Signed-off-by : Dhaval Giani <dhaval@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
> 
> ...
>

> @@ -219,6 +225,9 @@ static inline struct task_grp *task_grp(
>  
>  #ifdef CONFIG_FAIR_USER_SCHED
>  	tg = p->user->tg;
> +#elif CONFIG_FAIR_CGROUP_SCHED
> +	tg = container_of(task_subsys_state(p, cpu_cgroup_subsys_id),
> +				struct task_grp, css);
>  #else
>  	tg  = &init_task_grp;
>  #endif

that's a bit funny-looking.  Are CONFIG_FAIR_CGROUP_SCHED and
CONFIG_FAIR_USER_SCHED mutually exclusive?  Doesn't seem that way.  if
they're both defined then CONFIG_FAIR_USER_SCHED "wins".

Anyway, please confirm that this is correct?

I'll switch that to `#elif defined(CONFIG_FAIR_CGROUP_SCHED)'.  We can get
gcc warnings with `#if CONFIG_FOO', and people should be using `#ifdef
CONFIG_FOO', so I assume the same applies to #elif.


-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/