Re: [PATCH v2 3/5] change number_of_cpusets to an atomic

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



(2012/04/24 4:37), Glauber Costa wrote:

> This will allow us to call destroy() without holding the
> cgroup_mutex(). Other important updates inside update_flags()
> are protected by the callback_mutex.
> 
> We could protect this variable with the callback_mutex as well,
> as suggested by Li Zefan, but we need to make sure we are protected
> by that mutex at all times, and some of its updates happen inside the
> cgroup_mutex - which means we would deadlock.
> 
> An atomic variable is not expensive, since it is seldom updated,
> and protect us well.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Glauber Costa <glommer@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>


Reviewed-by: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

--
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


[Index of Archives]     [Linux ARM Kernel]     [Linux ARM]     [Linux Omap]     [Fedora ARM]     [IETF Annouce]     [Security]     [Bugtraq]     [Linux OMAP]     [Linux MIPS]     [eCos]     [Asterisk Internet PBX]     [Linux API]     [Monitors]

  Powered by Linux