[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <6599ad830703071250p6c92a357g51391a23ee3d78d8@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2007 12:50:03 -0800
From: "Paul Menage" <menage@...gle.com>
To: vatsa@...ibm.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 3/7/07, Srivatsa Vaddagiri <vatsa@...ibm.com> wrote:
> 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.
>
The callback mutex (which is what container_lock() actually locks) is
also used to synchronize fork/exit against subsystem additions, in the
event that some subsystem has registered fork or exit callbacks. We
could probably have a separate subsystem_mutex for that instead.
Apart from that, yes, it may well be possible to move callback lock
entirely inside cpusets.
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