[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <6599ad830610300407x674059ebh8337d05a4e8ebe85@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2006 04:07:20 -0800
From: "Paul Menage" <menage@...gle.com>
To: "Paul Jackson" <pj@....com>
Cc: vatsa@...ibm.com, dev@...nvz.org, sekharan@...ibm.com,
ckrm-tech@...ts.sourceforge.net, balbir@...ibm.com,
haveblue@...ibm.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
matthltc@...ibm.com, dipankar@...ibm.com, rohitseth@...gle.com
Subject: Re: [ckrm-tech] [RFC] Resource Management - Infrastructure choices
On 10/30/06, Paul Jackson <pj@....com> wrote:
> I get away with this in the cpuset code because:
> 1) I have the cpuset pointer directly in 'task_struct', so don't
> have to chase down anything, for each task, while scanning the
> task list. I just have to ask, for each task, if its cpuset
> pointer points to the cpuset of interest.
That's the same when it's transferred to containers - each task_struct
now has a container pointer, and you can just see whether the
container pointer matches the container that you're interested in.
> 2) I don't care if I get an inconsistent answer, so I don't have
> to lock each task, nor do I even lockout the rest of the cpuset
> code. All I know, at the end of the scan, is that each task that
> I claim is attached to the cpuset in question was attached to it at
> some point during my scan, not necessarilly all at the same time.
Well, anything that can be accomplished from within the tasklist_lock
can get a consistent result without any additional lists or
synchronization - it seems that it would be good to come up with a
real-world example of something that *can't* make do with this before
adding extra book-keeping.
Paul
-
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists