[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <6599ad830704041837h3583108bkf8e7d9ded23e916@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2007 18:37:23 -0700
From: "Paul Menage" <menage@...gle.com>
To: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>
Cc: vatsa@...ibm.com, sekharan@...ibm.com,
ckrm-tech@...ts.sourceforge.net, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
xemul@...ru, rohitseth@...gle.com, pj@....com, mbligh@...gle.com,
winget@...gle.com, containers@...ts.osdl.org,
"Serge E. Hallyn" <serue@...ibm.com>, dev@...ru, devel@...nvz.org
Subject: Re: [ckrm-tech] [PATCH 7/7] containers (V7): Container interface to nsproxy subsystem
On 4/4/07, Paul Menage <menage@...gle.com> wrote:
> The current code creates such arrays when it needs an atomic snapshot
> of the set of tasks in the container (e.g. for reporting them to
> userspace or updating the mempolicies of all the tasks in the case of
> cpusets). It may be possible to do it by traversing tasklist and
> dropping the lock to operate on each task where necessary - I'll take
> a look at that.
Just to clarify this - the cases that currently need an array of task
pointers *do* already traverse tasklist in order to locate those tasks
as needed - its when they want to be able to operate on those tasks
outside of the tasklist lock that the array is needed - lock
tasklist_lock, fill the array with tasks (with added refcounts), drop
tasklist_lock, do stuff.
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