From: ebiederm@xmission.com (Eric W. Biederman)
To: Paul Jackson <pj@sgi.com>
Cc: "Paul Menage" <menage@google.com>,
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,
svaidy@linux.vnet.ibm.com, xemul@openvz.org,
containers@lists.osdl.org, balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] task containersv11 add tasks file interface fix for cpusets
Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2007 17:20:43 -0600 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <m13awhb5mc.fsf@ebiederm.dsl.xmission.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20071011150315.78c4f45f.pj@sgi.com> (Paul Jackson's message of "Thu, 11 Oct 2007 15:03:15 -0700")
Stupid question.
Would it help at all if we structured this as:
- Take the control group off of the cpus and runqueues.
- Modify the tasks in the control group.
- Place the control group back on the runqueues.
Essentially this is what ptrace does (except for one task at a time).
Since we know that the tasks are not running, and that we have
exclusive access to the tasks in the control group we can take action
as if we were the actual tasks themselves. Which should simplify
locking.
So I think with just a touch of care we can significantly simplify the
locking by being much more coarse grained, at the expense of this kind
of control group operation being more expensive. Plus we would have
an operation that was reusable.
I think the stop everything. modify everything, start everything
could also be used instead of an array of task structures.
Eric
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2007-10-11 23:26 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 26+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2007-10-03 8:42 [PATCH] task containersv11 add tasks file interface fix for cpusets Paul Jackson
2007-10-03 15:51 ` Paul Menage
2007-10-03 17:58 ` Paul Jackson
2007-10-03 18:10 ` Paul Menage
2007-10-03 18:25 ` Paul Menage
2007-10-03 20:16 ` Paul Jackson
2007-10-03 20:31 ` Paul Menage
2007-10-03 20:52 ` Paul Jackson
2007-10-03 20:58 ` Paul Menage
2007-10-06 8:24 ` Paul Jackson
2007-10-06 17:54 ` David Rientjes
2007-10-06 19:59 ` Paul Jackson
2007-10-06 21:09 ` Paul Menage
2007-10-06 21:41 ` Paul Jackson
2007-10-11 22:03 ` Paul Jackson
2007-10-11 23:20 ` Eric W. Biederman [this message]
2007-10-12 1:23 ` Paul Jackson
2007-10-07 6:13 ` David Rientjes
2007-10-06 21:11 ` Paul Menage
2007-10-07 6:15 ` David Rientjes
2007-10-10 20:46 ` Paul Menage
2007-10-10 20:59 ` David Rientjes
2007-10-11 23:15 ` Paul Jackson
2007-10-12 15:13 ` David Rientjes
2007-10-06 20:53 ` Paul Menage
2007-10-03 20:56 ` Paul Jackson
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=m13awhb5mc.fsf@ebiederm.dsl.xmission.com \
--to=ebiederm@xmission.com \
--cc=a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=clg@fr.ibm.com \
--cc=containers@lists.osdl.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=menage@google.com \
--cc=nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au \
--cc=pj@sgi.com \
--cc=rientjes@google.com \
--cc=serue@us.ibm.com \
--cc=svaidy@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=xemul@openvz.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox