From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Paul Jackson Subject: Re: [PATCH] task containersv11 add tasks file interface fix for cpusets Date: Sat, 6 Oct 2007 14:41:57 -0700 Message-ID: <20071006144157.a2243305.pj@sgi.com> References: <20071003084241.24279.62099.sendpatchset@jackhammer.engr.sgi.com> <6599ad830710030851jb44f00ft9634f9381218b6e9@mail.gmail.com> <20071003105817.7adf6516.pj@sgi.com> <6599ad830710031110r1a74eafej56f20cc33e72ac81@mail.gmail.com> <20071003131632.fed4b848.pj@sgi.com> <6599ad830710031331h15d35e90lc63d845efd2de6f5@mail.gmail.com> <20071006012437.c0fd3a8a.pj@sgi.com> <20071006125904.a26ed99f.pj@sgi.com> <6599ad830710061409p2dcaa1c8u8c6864beaaafb149@mail.gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <6599ad830710061409p2dcaa1c8u8c6864beaaafb149@mail.gmail.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Paul Menage Cc: rientjes@google.com, akpm@linux-foundation.org, nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au, a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl, serue@us.ibm.com, clg@fr.ibm.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, ebiederm@xmission.com, svaidy@linux.vnet.ibm.com, xemul@openvz.org, containers@lists.osdl.org, balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com List-Id: containers.vger.kernel.org Paul M wrote: > > What's wrong with: > > allocate a page of task_struct pointers > again: > need_repeat = false; > cgroup_iter_start(); > while (cgroup_iter_next()) { > if (p->cpus_allowed != new_cpumask) { > store p; > if (page is full) { > need_repeat = true; > break; > } > } > } > for each saved task p { > set_cpus_allowed(p, new_cpumask); > release p; > } > if (need_repeat) > goto again; That might work ... nice idea there, comparing the two masks, so one only needs to store the ones not yet fixed. Uunfortunately, I need to put this aside until I return in four days, from a short trip. Given that cgroups is targeted for 2.6.24, and that cpusets is broken without this, I'll have to do something soon. But this, or some such, should work, soon enough. Thanks. > I'd much rather not perpetuate that broken API requirement. The fact > that cpusets wants this odd behaviour is based on a nasty hack. Well ... yeah ... it's a bit of an ugly child. But I'm its daddy. The kid looks fine in my eyes. -- I won't rest till it's the best ... Programmer, Linux Scalability Paul Jackson 1.925.600.0401