Date: Mon, 18 May 2015 12:34:40 -0400
From: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
To: lizefan@huawei.com
Cc: cgroups@vger.kernel.org, mingo@redhat.com, peterz@infradead.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCHSET] cgroup, sched: restructure threadgroup locking and
 replace it with a percpu_rwsem
Message-ID: <20150518163440.GA24861@htj.duckdns.org>
References: <1431549318-16756-1-git-send-email-tj@kernel.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <1431549318-16756-1-git-send-email-tj@kernel.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1028
Lines: 23

On Wed, May 13, 2015 at 04:35:15PM -0400, Tejun Heo wrote:
> threadgroup locking was added because cgroup needs threadgroups to
> stay stable across attach operations.  It was implemented as a
> per-signal_struct generic locking mechanism so that other users which
> require threadgroups stable across blocking operations can use it too;
> however, it hasn't grown any other use cases and still conditionalized
> on CONFIG_CGROUPS.

Ingo, Peter, what do you guys think?  If you guys are okay with the
changes, how do you want to route the patches?  Given that it's mostly
cgroup-specific and there are more cgroup changes depending on these,
it'd be the easiest to route these through the cgroup tree but putting
it elsewhere and pulling into cgroup is fine too.

Thanks.

-- 
tejun
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/