[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1215640723.7149.35.camel@localhost.localdomain>
Date: Wed, 09 Jul 2008 14:58:43 -0700
From: Matt Helsley <matthltc@...ibm.com>
To: Paul Menage <menage@...gle.com>
Cc: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>,
Cedric Le Goater <clg@...ibm.com>,
Linux Containers <containers@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
Linux-Kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>,
linux-pm@...ts.linux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] Container Freezer: Reuse Suspend Freezer
On Tue, 2008-07-08 at 13:07 -0700, Paul Menage wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 8, 2008 at 1:06 PM, Paul Menage <menage@...gle.com> wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 8, 2008 at 12:39 PM, Matt Helsley <matthltc@...ibm.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> One is to try and disallow users from moving frozen tasks. That doesn't
> >> seem like a good approach since it would require a new cgroups interface
> >> "can_detach()".
> >
> > Detaching from the old cgroup happens at the same time as attaching to
> > the new cgroup, so can_attach() would work here.
Update: I've made a patch implementing this. However it might be better
to just modify attach() to thaw the moving task rather than disallow
moving the frozen task. Serge, Cedric, Kame-san, do you have any
thoughts on which is more useful and/or intuitive?
> And the whole can_attach()/attach() protocol needs reworking anyway,
> see my email (hopefully) later today.
>
> Paul
Interesting. I look forward to seeing this.
Cheers,
-Matt
--
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