[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20070308103808.GH6504@in.ibm.com>
Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2007 16:08:08 +0530
From: Srivatsa Vaddagiri <vatsa@...ibm.com>
To: "Paul Menage" <menage@...gle.com>
Cc: sekharan@...ibm.com, ckrm-tech@...ts.sourceforge.net,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, xemul@...ru, dev@...ru,
containers@...ts.osdl.org, pj@....com, ebiederm@...ssion.com,
mbligh@...gle.com, winget@...gle.com, rohitseth@...gle.com,
serue@...ibm.com, devel@...nvz.org
Subject: Re: [ckrm-tech] [PATCH 1/7] containers (V7): Generic container system abstracted from cpusets code
On Wed, Mar 07, 2007 at 12:50:03PM -0800, Paul Menage wrote:
> 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.
Why can't manage_mutex itself be used there (to serialize fork/exit callbacks
against modification to hierarchy)?
> Apart from that, yes, it may well be possible to move callback lock
> entirely inside cpusets.
Yes, that way only the hierarchy hosting cpusets takes the hit of
double-locking. cpuset_subsys->create/destroy can take this additional lock
inside 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