Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754048AbZGNRoD (ORCPT ); Tue, 14 Jul 2009 13:44:03 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753665AbZGNRoC (ORCPT ); Tue, 14 Jul 2009 13:44:02 -0400 Received: from smtp-out.google.com ([216.239.45.13]:10195 "EHLO smtp-out.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750820AbZGNRoB (ORCPT ); Tue, 14 Jul 2009 13:44:01 -0400 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; s=beta; d=google.com; c=nofws; q=dns; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to: cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:x-system-of-record; b=XOlOGgDJcoBwUkDCwM3+g3BU/eQZQz7l29+5BhGLU4C3Yy9Vcsw6P3D1BOza5xgs7 +UM2ahszosb9a+oo5Bssw== MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <2f86c2480907141034r5a985cfue9e8fdf64ad28465@mail.gmail.com> References: <20090702231814.3969.44308.stgit@menage.mtv.corp.google.com> <20090705063850.GX11273@balbir.in.ibm.com> <6599ad830907101658i13e4046br70377a487dd6b49b@mail.gmail.com> <20090713121138.GC5051@balbir.in.ibm.com> <6599ad830907130926v7788af12hdcd76e4ccb3ab6de@mail.gmail.com> <20090714055638.GI5051@balbir.in.ibm.com> <6599ad830907132349u6cf52060t4fafb6637cbe4ed1@mail.gmail.com> <20090714071617.GK5051@balbir.in.ibm.com> <2f86c2480907141034r5a985cfue9e8fdf64ad28465@mail.gmail.com> Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2009 10:43:56 -0700 Message-ID: <6599ad830907141043s1c16d5c9saad9118c210ecef4@mail.gmail.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] CGroups: cgroup member list enhancement/fix From: Paul Menage To: Benjamin Blum Cc: balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com, lizf@cn.fujitzu.com, containers@lists.linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, libcg-devel , akpm@linux-foundation.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-System-Of-Record: true Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 806 Lines: 18 On Tue, Jul 14, 2009 at 10:34 AM, Benjamin Blum wrote: > procs file). While that's preferable to a global lock, if we can add a > field to task_struct, a (lockless) flag-based approach might be > possible. > I've been trying to think of a way to do that. AFAICS the only way to do that reliably would be to move the call to cgroup_fork() that hooks into the parent's cgroup inside the lock on the group leader's thread list, and move the fork callbacks into cgroup_fork(). (Which would mean that they'd not be able to sleep/fail, etc). 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/