[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20151026141027.GW2508@worktop.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Mon, 26 Oct 2015 15:10:27 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Florian Weimer <fweimer@...hat.com>
Cc: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
Mike Galbraith <umgwanakikbuti@...il.com>,
Paul Turner <pjt@...gle.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
Li Zefan <lizefan@...wei.com>,
cgroups <cgroups@...r.kernel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
kernel-team <kernel-team@...com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] sched: Implement interface for cgroup unified
hierarchy
On Sun, Oct 25, 2015 at 02:17:23PM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
> On 10/25/2015 12:58 PM, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
>
> > Well, I was thinking we could just teach them to use
> > "syscall(SYS_gettid)".
>
> Right, and that's easier if TIDs are officially part of the GNU API.
>
> I think the worry is that some future system might have TIDs which do
> not share the PID space, or are real descriptors (that they need
> explicit open and close operations).
For the scheduler the sharing of pid/tid space is not an issue.
Semantically all [1] scheduler syscalls take a tid. There isn't a single
syscall that iterates the thread group.
Even sys_setpriority() interprets its @who argument as a tid when
@which == PRIO_PROCESS (PRIO_PGRP looks to be the actual process).
[1] as seen from: git grep SYSCALL kernel/sched/
--
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