On 06/13/16 21:33, Tejun Heo wrote: > Hello, > > On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 09:29:32PM +0000, Topi Miettinen wrote: >> I used fork callback as I don't want to lower the watermark in all cases >> where the charge can be lowered, so I'd update the watermark only when >> the fork really happens. > > I don't think that would make a noticeable difference. That's where > we decide whether to grant fork or not after all and thus where the > actual usage is. > You mean, increment count on cgroup_can_fork()? But what if the fork() fails after that (signal_pending case)? >> Is there a better way to compare and set? I don't think atomic_cmpxchg() >> does what's needed, > > cmpxchg loop should do what's necessary although I'm not sure how much > being strictly correct matters here. > > Thanks. > These are not used for any decisions taken by kernel, but by the user. I have to say I don't know where's the line between strict correctness and less strict. -Topi -- 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
