Re: [PATCH 1/7] containers (V7): Generic container system abstracted from cpusets code

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

 



On Mon, Feb 12, 2007 at 12:15:22AM -0800, menage@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> +/**
> + * container_lock - lock out any changes to container structures
> + *
> + * The out of memory (oom) code needs to mutex_lock containers
> + * from being changed while it scans the tasklist looking for a
> + * task in an overlapping container.

Which specific portion of oom code cares abt container structure being
intact? 

If I understand correctly, only cpuset requires this double locking.
More specifically, cpusets cares about walking cpuset->parent list
safely with callback_mutex held correct?

If that is the case, I think we can push container_lock entirely inside 
cpuset.c and not have others exposed to this double-lock complexity.
This is possible because cpuset.c (build on top of containers) still has
cpuset->parent and walking cpuset->parent list safely can be made
possible with a second lock which is local to only cpuset.c.

-- 
Regards,
vatsa
_______________________________________________
Containers mailing list
Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.osdl.org/mailman/listinfo/containers


[Index of Archives]     [Cgroups]     [Netdev]     [Linux Wireless]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Security]     [Linux for Hams]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite Forum]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux Admin]     [Samba]

  Powered by Linux