Hello, On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 05:02:04PM +0800, Li Zefan wrote: > - We still need some kind of locking to syncronize fork and the traverser. > fork side is protected by tasklist_lock, while the traverser takes > css_set_lock. Can't we do both after tasklist_lock is released under css_set_lock? > - After linking the new task to css set list, the task is visible and thus > can be moved to another cgroup, which makes things more complicated and > the subsystem callbacks may have to acquire cgroup_mutex. Hmmm... freezer currently doesn't allow migrating in and out of frozen cgroup and even when it does callbacks in the migration path should synchronize against freezer->lock. I *think* that should be enough and can't see why this will be simpler or more complex depending on when fork callback is called. > - The task_counter subsystem wants to get notified before the new task > is linked, so it's able to abort the fork. This one maybe but for this cgroup_fork_callbacks() is already too late, isn't it? We better have pre-fork callbacks instead, no? Thanks. -- tejun -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe cgroups" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
