[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20201201185608.GA219024@google.com>
Date: Tue, 1 Dec 2020 13:56:08 -0500
From: Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Nishanth Aravamudan <naravamudan@...italocean.com>,
Julien Desfossez <jdesfossez@...italocean.com>,
Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>,
Vineeth Pillai <viremana@...ux.microsoft.com>,
Aaron Lu <aaron.lwe@...il.com>,
Aubrey Li <aubrey.intel@...il.com>, tglx@...utronix.de,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mingo@...nel.org,
torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, fweisbec@...il.com,
keescook@...omium.org, kerrnel@...gle.com,
Phil Auld <pauld@...hat.com>,
Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@....com>,
Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>,
Pawan Gupta <pawan.kumar.gupta@...ux.intel.com>,
Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>, vineeth@...byteword.org,
Chen Yu <yu.c.chen@...el.com>,
Christian Brauner <christian.brauner@...ntu.com>,
Agata Gruza <agata.gruza@...el.com>,
Antonio Gomez Iglesias <antonio.gomez.iglesias@...el.com>,
graf@...zon.com, konrad.wilk@...cle.com, dfaggioli@...e.com,
pjt@...gle.com, rostedt@...dmis.org, derkling@...gle.com,
benbjiang@...cent.com,
Alexandre Chartre <alexandre.chartre@...cle.com>,
James.Bottomley@...senpartnership.com, OWeisse@...ch.edu,
Dhaval Giani <dhaval.giani@...cle.com>,
Junaid Shahid <junaids@...gle.com>, jsbarnes@...gle.com,
chris.hyser@...cle.com, Ben Segall <bsegall@...gle.com>,
Josh Don <joshdon@...gle.com>, Hao Luo <haoluo@...gle.com>,
Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@....com>,
Aubrey Li <aubrey.li@...ux.intel.com>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>,
Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH -tip 22/32] sched: Split the cookie and setup per-task
cookie on fork
On Wed, Nov 25, 2020 at 12:07:09PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 17, 2020 at 06:19:52PM -0500, Joel Fernandes (Google) wrote:
> > Also, for the per-task cookie, it will get weird if we use pointers of any
> > emphemeral objects. For this reason, introduce a refcounted object who's sole
> > purpose is to assign unique cookie value by way of the object's pointer.
>
> Might be useful to explain why exactly none of the many pid_t's are
> good enough.
I thought about this already and it does not seem a good fit. When 2
processes share, it is possible that more processes are added to that logical
group. Then the original processes that share die, but if we hold on to the
pid_t or task_struct, that would be awkward. It seemed introducing a new
refcounted struct was the right way to go. I can add these details to the
change log.
thanks!
- Joel
Powered by blists - more mailing lists