netdev - Re: [PATCH v2 3/5] change number_of

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.00.1204241001050.26005@router.home>
Date:	Tue, 24 Apr 2012 10:02:02 -0500 (CDT)
From:	Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>
To:	Glauber Costa <glommer@...allels.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 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.

--
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