[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <6599ad830710230021n536908c0xd95250f36aa8a27d@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2007 00:21:59 -0700
From: "Paul Menage" <menage@...gle.com>
To: vatsa@...ux.vnet.ibm.com
Cc: "Andrew Morton" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
"Ingo Molnar" <mingo@...e.hu>,
"Srivatsa Vaddagiri" <vatsa@...ibm.com>,
containers@...ts.linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] CFS CGroup: Report usage
On 10/22/07, Paul Menage <menage@...gle.com> wrote:
>
> Using cgroup_mutex is certainly possible for now, although more
> heavy-weight than I'd like long term. Using css_get isn't the right
> approach, I think - we shouldn't be able to cause an rmdir to fail due
> to a concurrent read.
>
OK, the obvious solution is to use the same approach for subsystem
state objects as we do for the struct cgroup itself - move the calls
to the subsystem destroy methods to cgroup_diput. A control file
dentry will keep alive the parent dir's dentry, which will keep alive
the cgroup and (with this change) the subsystem state objects too.
The only potential drawback that I can see is that an open fd on a
cgroup directory or a control file will keep more memory alive than it
would have done previously.
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