[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <484F8F7C.8040009@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2008 14:10:28 +0530
From: Balbir Singh <balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Paul Menage <menage@...gle.com>
CC: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Dhaval Giani <dhaval@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Balaji Rao <balajirrao@...il.com>,
containers@...ts.osdl.org, vatsa@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl
Subject: Re: [-mm] CPU controller statistics (v5)
Paul Menage wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 3, 2008 at 1:05 PM, Balbir Singh <balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
>> diff --git a/include/linux/cgroup.h b/include/linux/cgroup.h
>> index e155aa7..60a25cb 100644
>> --- a/include/linux/cgroup.h
>> +++ b/include/linux/cgroup.h
>> @@ -293,6 +293,7 @@ int cgroup_is_descendant(const struct cgroup *cgrp);
>> struct cgroup_subsys {
>> struct cgroup_subsys_state *(*create)(struct cgroup_subsys *ss,
>> struct cgroup *cgrp);
>> + void (*initialize)(int early);
>> void (*pre_destroy)(struct cgroup_subsys *ss, struct cgroup *cgrp);
>> void (*destroy)(struct cgroup_subsys *ss, struct cgroup *cgrp);
>> int (*can_attach)(struct cgroup_subsys *ss,
>> diff --git a/kernel/cgroup.c b/kernel/cgroup.c
>> index 15ac0e1..77569d7 100644
>> --- a/kernel/cgroup.c
>> +++ b/kernel/cgroup.c
>> @@ -2553,6 +2553,9 @@ int __init cgroup_init_early(void)
>>
>> if (ss->early_init)
>> cgroup_init_subsys(ss);
>> +
>> + if (ss->initialize)
>> + ss->initialize(1);
>> }
>> return 0;
>> }
>> @@ -2577,6 +2580,9 @@ int __init cgroup_init(void)
>> struct cgroup_subsys *ss = subsys[i];
>> if (!ss->early_init)
>> cgroup_init_subsys(ss);
>> +
>> + if (ss->initialize)
>> + ss->initialize(0);
>> }
>
> This seems a little weird - even if the subsystem didn't want early
> initialization, we call its initialize() during early setup?
>
> I assume the idea is to move away from the current model where the
> subsystem is expected to initialize itself during the first call to
> its create() method, when it gets passed a cgroup with a NULL parent?
> I agree that was a bit icky. How about we call ss->initialize() from
> cgroup_init_subsys()? Then we wouldn't need the "early" parameter,
> since it would be implicit based on whether the subsystem wanted early
> initialization or not.
>
The motivation was to ensure that kmalloc* calls are available at the time of
ss_initialize
> Also, if you're adding a new subsystem method, you should document it
> in Documentation/cgroups.txt
Thanks for the comments. There were some more things that are wrong with this
patch and Andrew pointed them out. We'll work on a newer vesion.
--
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