[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20130605194522.GG10693@mtj.dyndns.org>
Date: Wed, 5 Jun 2013 12:45:22 -0700
From: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To: Li Zefan <lizefan@...wei.com>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Cgroups <cgroups@...r.kernel.org>,
Containers <containers@...ts.linux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 06/10] cpuset: record old_mems_allowed in struct cpuset
Hello, Li.
On Wed, Jun 05, 2013 at 05:16:24PM +0800, Li Zefan wrote:
> @@ -1425,7 +1435,6 @@ static void cpuset_attach(struct cgroup *cgrp, struct cgroup_taskset *tset)
> * Change mm, possibly for multiple threads in a threadgroup. This is
> * expensive and may sleep.
> */
> - cpuset_attach_nodemask_to = cs->mems_allowed;
> mm = get_task_mm(leader);
> if (mm) {
> mpol_rebind_mm(mm, &cpuset_attach_nodemask_to);
This looks a bit suspicious to me. Now we're setting mm's nodemask to
guarantee_online_mems() output rather than cs->mems_allowed. Is this
change intended? If so, it probably deserves an explanation in the
description?
Thanks.
--
tejun
--
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