Hello, Li. On Sat, Mar 09, 2013 at 10:11:51AM +0800, Li Zefan wrote: > On 2013/3/8 3:38, Tejun Heo wrote: > > On Thu, Mar 07, 2013 at 08:12:42PM +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote: > >> Well yes, I agree. I think that perfomance-wise threadgroup_change_begin() > >> in de_thread() is fine, and perhaps it is even more clean because we are > >> going to do the thread-group change. The scope of cred_guard_mutex is huge, > >> it doesn't look very nice in threadgroup_lock(). > >> > >> But we should avoid the cgroup-specific hooks as much as possible, so I > >> like your patch more. > > > > I don't really mind how it's done but while my approach seems to limit > > itself to cgroup proper, threadgroup locking is actually more invasive > > by meddling with cred_mutex. As you said, yours is the cleaner and > > probably more permanent one here. > > > > Agreed. > > Now we need that patch to be resent with SOB and proper changelog. Now that I think more about it, I think I want both patches. It is bothering that threadgroup lock is nested inside cgroup_lock. It always has. I just couldn't do anything about that until recently. Li, can you be persuaded into getting the lock reordering patch into a useable shape? :) 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
