[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20120124155303.acbb3b11.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2012 15:53:03 -0800
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@...nvz.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Pavel Emelyanov <xemul@...allels.com>,
Serge Hallyn <serge.hallyn@...onical.com>,
KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
Andrew Vagin <avagin@...nvz.org>,
"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [patch 1/4] fs, proc: Introduce /proc/<pid>/task/<tid>/children
entry v8
On Mon, 23 Jan 2012 18:20:37 +0400
Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@...nvz.org> wrote:
> When we do checkpoint of a task we need to know the list of children
> the task, has but there is no easy and fast way to generate reverse
> parent->children chain from arbitrary <pid> (while a parent pid is
> provided in "PPid" field of /proc/<pid>/status).
>
> So instead of walking over all pids in the system (creating one big process
> tree in memory, just to figure out which children a task has) -- we add
> explicit /proc/<pid>/task/<tid>/children entry, because the kernel already has
> this kind of information but it is not yet exported.
>
> This is a first level children, not the whole process tree.
Is there a reason for not putting this new code inside
CONFIG_CHECKPOINT_RESTART? If so, please changelog that.
We could add
/* #ifdef CONFIG_CHECKPOINT_RESTART (reasoning goes here) */
so that if we should decide to pull all this code out again, a grep
will flag this code for consideration.
--
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