[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140818203801.GE49576@redhat.com>
Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2014 16:38:08 -0400
From: Don Zickus <dzickus@...hat.com>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Cc: akpm@...ux-foundation.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
pbonzini@...hat.com, mingo@...hat.com,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
chai wen <chaiw.fnst@...fujitsu.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/5] softlockup: make detector be aware of task switch of
processes hogging cpu
On Mon, Aug 18, 2014 at 09:02:00PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Don Zickus <dzickus@...hat.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > So I agree with the motivation of this improvement, but
> > > > > is this implementation namespace-safe?
> > > >
> > > > What namespace are you worried about colliding with? I
> > > > thought softlockup_ would provide the safety?? Maybe I
> > > > am missing something obvious. :-(
> > >
> > > I meant PID namespaces - a PID in itself isn't guaranteed
> > > to be unique across the system.
> >
> > Ah, I don't think we thought about that. Is there a better
> > way to do this? Is there a domain id or something that can
> > be OR'd with the pid?
>
> What is always unique is the task pointer itself. We use pids
> when we interface with user-space - but we don't really do that
> here, right?
No, I don't believe so. Ok, so saving 'current' and comparing that should
be enough, correct?
Cheers,
Don
--
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