Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751682Ab1BDVre (ORCPT ); Fri, 4 Feb 2011 16:47:34 -0500 Received: from SMTP.ANDREW.CMU.EDU ([128.2.11.95]:52399 "EHLO smtp.andrew.cmu.edu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750863Ab1BDVrd (ORCPT ); Fri, 4 Feb 2011 16:47:33 -0500 Date: Fri, 4 Feb 2011 16:43:54 -0500 From: Ben Blum To: Andrew Morton Cc: Ben Blum , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, containers@lists.linux-foundation.org, ebiederm@xmission.com, lizf@cn.fujitsu.com, matthltc@us.ibm.com, menage@google.com, oleg@redhat.com, David Rientjes , Miao Xie Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 1/3] cgroups: read-write lock CLONE_THREAD forking per threadgroup Message-ID: <20110204214354.GB5916@ghc17.ghc.andrew.cmu.edu> References: <20101224082226.GA13872@ghc17.ghc.andrew.cmu.edu> <20101226120919.GA28529@ghc17.ghc.andrew.cmu.edu> <20101226120951.GB28529@ghc17.ghc.andrew.cmu.edu> <20110124130529.903d9832.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <20110204212515.GA5916@ghc17.ghc.andrew.cmu.edu> <20110204133657.78aeebe3.akpm@linux-foundation.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20110204133657.78aeebe3.akpm@linux-foundation.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) X-PMX-Version: 5.5.9.388399, Antispam-Engine: 2.7.2.376379, Antispam-Data: 2011.2.4.213617 X-SMTP-Spam-Clean: 8% ( BODYTEXTP_SIZE_3000_LESS 0, BODY_SIZE_2000_2999 0, BODY_SIZE_5000_LESS 0, BODY_SIZE_7000_LESS 0, __BOUNCE_CHALLENGE_SUBJ 0, __BOUNCE_NDR_SUBJ_EXEMPT 0, __CD 0, __CT 0, __CT_TEXT_PLAIN 0, __HAS_MSGID 0, __MIME_TEXT_ONLY 0, __MIME_VERSION 0, __SANE_MSGID 0, __TO_MALFORMED_2 0, __URI_NO_PATH 0, __URI_NO_WWW 0, __USER_AGENT 0) X-SMTP-Spam-Score: 8% Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 3027 Lines: 72 On Fri, Feb 04, 2011 at 01:36:57PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote: > On Fri, 4 Feb 2011 16:25:15 -0500 > Ben Blum wrote: > > > On Mon, Jan 24, 2011 at 01:05:29PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote: > > > On Sun, 26 Dec 2010 07:09:51 -0500 > > > Ben Blum wrote: > > > > > > > Adds functionality to read/write lock CLONE_THREAD fork()ing per-threadgroup > > > > > > > > From: Ben Blum > > > > > > > > This patch adds an rwsem that lives in a threadgroup's signal_struct that's > > > > taken for reading in the fork path, under CONFIG_CGROUPS. If another part of > > > > the kernel later wants to use such a locking mechanism, the CONFIG_CGROUPS > > > > ifdefs should be changed to a higher-up flag that CGROUPS and the other system > > > > would both depend on. > > > > > > > > This is a pre-patch for cgroup-procs-write.patch. > > > > > > > > ... > > > > > > > > +/* See the declaration of threadgroup_fork_lock in signal_struct. */ > > > > +#ifdef CONFIG_CGROUPS > > > > +static inline void threadgroup_fork_read_lock(struct task_struct *tsk) > > > > +{ > > > > + down_read(&tsk->signal->threadgroup_fork_lock); > > > > +} > > > > +static inline void threadgroup_fork_read_unlock(struct task_struct *tsk) > > > > +{ > > > > + up_read(&tsk->signal->threadgroup_fork_lock); > > > > +} > > > > +static inline void threadgroup_fork_write_lock(struct task_struct *tsk) > > > > +{ > > > > + down_write(&tsk->signal->threadgroup_fork_lock); > > > > +} > > > > +static inline void threadgroup_fork_write_unlock(struct task_struct *tsk) > > > > +{ > > > > + up_write(&tsk->signal->threadgroup_fork_lock); > > > > +} > > > > +#else > > > > > > Risky. sched.h doesn't include rwsem.h. > > > > > > We could make it do so, but almost every compilation unit in the kernel > > > includes sched.h. It would be nicer to make the kernel build > > > finer-grained, rather than blunter-grained. Don't be afraid to add new > > > header files if that is one way of doing this! > > > > Hmm, good point. But there's also: > > > > +#ifdef CONFIG_CGROUPS > > + struct rw_semaphore threadgroup_fork_lock; > > +#endif > > > > in the signal_struct, also in sched.h, which needs to be there. Or I > > could change it to a struct pointer with a forward incomplete > > declaration above, and kmalloc/kfree it? I don't like adding more > > alloc/free calls but don't know if it's more or less important than > > header granularity. > > What about adding a new header file which includes rwsem.h and sched.h > and then defines the new interfaces? Er, I mean the definition of signal_struct needs rwsem.h as well, not just the threadgroup_fork_* functions. (And I suspect moving signal_struct somewhere else would give bigger problems...) -- 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/