[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20070307122117.GB2336@in.ibm.com>
Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2007 17:51:17 +0530
From: Srivatsa Vaddagiri <vatsa@...ibm.com>
To: menage@...gle.com
Cc: akpm@...l.org, pj@....com, sekharan@...ibm.com, dev@...ru,
xemul@...ru, serue@...ibm.com, ebiederm@...ssion.com,
ckrm-tech@...ts.sourceforge.net, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
rohitseth@...gle.com, mbligh@...gle.com, winget@...gle.com,
containers@...ts.osdl.org, devel@...nvz.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/7] containers (V7): Generic container system abstracted from cpusets code
On Mon, Feb 12, 2007 at 12:15:22AM -0800, menage@...gle.com wrote:
> +/**
> + * container_lock - lock out any changes to container structures
> + *
> + * The out of memory (oom) code needs to mutex_lock containers
> + * from being changed while it scans the tasklist looking for a
> + * task in an overlapping container.
Which specific portion of oom code cares abt container structure being
intact?
If I understand correctly, only cpuset requires this double locking.
More specifically, cpusets cares about walking cpuset->parent list
safely with callback_mutex held correct?
If that is the case, I think we can push container_lock entirely inside
cpuset.c and not have others exposed to this double-lock complexity.
This is possible because cpuset.c (build on top of containers) still has
cpuset->parent and walking cpuset->parent list safely can be made
possible with a second lock which is local to only cpuset.c.
--
Regards,
vatsa
-
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