Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S965473AbXBMJhj (ORCPT ); Tue, 13 Feb 2007 04:37:39 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S965478AbXBMJhj (ORCPT ); Tue, 13 Feb 2007 04:37:39 -0500 Received: from smtp-out.google.com ([216.239.45.13]:13134 "EHLO smtp-out.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S965473AbXBMJhi (ORCPT ); Tue, 13 Feb 2007 04:37:38 -0500 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; s=beta; d=google.com; c=nofws; q=dns; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to: mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding: content-disposition:references; b=OwhY4ItbpA7fKrBY2vIcWzoX9gJY80FncxY4YZ6xtSGjQWQc/KMpOl0LmhpT5LlB0 BGBGJmCsimsCGDpFvU25g== Message-ID: <6599ad830702130137t4bbfcec1ma65a873504796730@mail.gmail.com> Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 01:37:27 -0800 From: "Paul Menage" To: "Pavel Emelianov" Subject: Re: [PATCH 6/7] containers (V7): BeanCounters over generic process containers Cc: akpm@osdl.org, pj@sgi.com, sekharan@us.ibm.com, dev@sw.ru, serue@us.ibm.com, vatsa@in.ibm.com, ebiederm@xmission.com, ckrm-tech@lists.sourceforge.net, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, rohitseth@google.com, mbligh@google.com, winget@google.com, containers@lists.osdl.org, devel@openvz.org In-Reply-To: <45D1825A.7070907@sw.ru> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <20070212081521.808338000@menage.corp.google.com> <20070212085104.998727000@menage.corp.google.com> <45D17C48.9030105@sw.ru> <6599ad830702130103l54f48df0y7c20606d31122a50@mail.gmail.com> <45D1825A.7070907@sw.ru> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 854 Lines: 26 On 2/13/07, Pavel Emelianov wrote: > > I have implementation that moves arbitrary task :) Is that the one that calls stop_machine() in order to move a task around? That seemed a little heavyweight ... > May be we can do context (container-on-task) handling lockless? What did you have in mind? > > I thought that we solved that problem by having a tmp_bc field in the > > task_struct that would take precedence over the main bc if it was > > non-null? > > Of course, but I'm commenting this patchset which doesn't have > this facility. OK, I can add the concept in to the example too. Paul - 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/