[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4F96D1A8.6040604@parallels.com>
Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2012 13:15:36 -0300
From: Glauber Costa <glommer@...allels.com>
To: Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>
CC: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
<cgroups@...r.kernel.org>, Li Zefan <lizefan@...wei.com>,
<kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>,
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, <devel@...nvz.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/5] change number_of_cpusets to an atomic
On 04/24/2012 12:02 PM, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> On Mon, 23 Apr 2012, Glauber Costa wrote:
>
>> This will allow us to call destroy() without holding the
>> cgroup_mutex(). Other important updates inside update_flags()
>> are protected by the callback_mutex.
>>
>> We could protect this variable with the callback_mutex as well,
>> as suggested by Li Zefan, but we need to make sure we are protected
>> by that mutex at all times, and some of its updates happen inside the
>> cgroup_mutex - which means we would deadlock.
>
> Would this not also be a good case to introduce static branching?
>
> number_of_cpusets is used to avoid going through unnecessary processing
> should there be no cpusets in use.
>
Well,
static branches comes with a set of problems themselves, so I usually
prefer to use them only in places where we don't want to pay even a
cache miss if we can avoid, or a function call, or anything like that -
like the slub cache alloc as you may have seen in my kmem memcg series.
It doesn't seem to be the case here.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists