[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <47F5266B.2060402@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date: Fri, 04 Apr 2008 00:18:11 +0530
From: Balbir Singh <balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Paul Menage <menage@...gle.com>
CC: Pavel Emelianov <xemul@...nvz.org>,
Hugh Dickins <hugh@...itas.com>,
Sudhir Kumar <skumar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
YAMAMOTO Takashi <yamamoto@...inux.co.jp>, lizf@...fujitsu.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, taka@...inux.co.jp,
linux-mm@...ck.org, David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>
Subject: Re: [-mm] Add an owner to the mm_struct (v7)
Paul Menage wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 3, 2008 at 11:34 AM, Balbir Singh <balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
>> That is indeed quite bad. Do we have to retire the group_leader to init_css_set?
>> Can we not check for delay_group_leader() there?
>>
>
> That might have unintentded consequences, such as leaving a pid in the
> cgroup that can't be moved (since it's PF_EXITING) but won't go away
> until its threads have all exited.
> Maybe that's OK if the other threads are guaranteed to have started
> exiting by this point. We'd need some cleanup for when the group
> leader finally did exit.
Yes, we might be stuck with an unremovable group, but I am not sure how to
address the side-effect at this point. Not having that check could mean that
mm_update_new_owner() will be called very frequently and for thousands of
threads that could clearly become an overhead, if threads start exiting one by
one - lead by the thread group leader.
--
Warm Regards,
Balbir Singh
Linux Technology Center
IBM, ISTL
--
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