[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <6599ad830704301009k11100a78we98e20deba9b1fdc@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2007 10:09:38 -0700
From: "Paul Menage" <menage@...gle.com>
To: vatsa@...ibm.com, "Paul Jackson" <pj@....com>
Cc: akpm@...ux-foundation.org, dev@...ru, xemul@...ru,
serue@...ibm.com, ebiederm@...ssion.com, haveblue@...ibm.com,
svaidy@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, balbir@...ibm.com,
ckrm-tech@...ts.sourceforge.net, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
rohitseth@...gle.com, mbligh@...gle.com, containers@...ts.osdl.org,
devel@...nvz.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/9] Containers (V9): Generic Process Containers
On 4/30/07, Srivatsa Vaddagiri <vatsa@...ibm.com> wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 29, 2007 at 02:37:21AM -0700, Paul Jackson wrote:
> > It builds and boots and mounts the cpuset file system ok.
> > But trying to write the 'mems' file hangs the system hard.
>
> Basically we are attempting a read_lock(&tasklist_lock) in
> container_task_count() after taking write_lock_irq(&tasklist_lock) in
> update_nodemask()!
Paul, is there any reason why we need to do a write_lock() on
tasklist_lock if we're just trying to block fork, or is it just
historical accident? Wouldn't it be fine to do a read_lock()?
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