Paul Menage wrote: > On Wed, Apr 16, 2008 at 10:16 PM, Andrew Morton > <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> > > Maybe it would be better to not do a cgroup_exit() until we're >> > > unhashed, so that cgroup_enable_task_cg_list() can't find the exiting >> > > task? >> >> So we won't be doing what Paul suggested? >> > > It's not as high a priority as Li's bug fix (which may be a good > candidate for 2.6.25.1) but for the future I think I'll implement this > distinguished css_set pointer for tasks that have finished > cgroup_exit(), since I think it will make the similar synchronization > in attach_task() cleaner, as well as cgroup_enable_task_cg_list(). > Yes, this approach sounds good to me. :) > Paul > _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
