Quoting Paul Menage (menage@xxxxxxxxxx): > On Mon, Aug 3, 2009 at 12:45 PM, Serge E. Hallyn<serue@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > This is probably a stupid idea, but... what about having zero > > overhead at clone(), and instead, at cgroup_task_migrate(), > > dequeue_task()ing all of the affected threads for the duration of > > the migrate? > > > > Or a simpler alternative - rather than taking the thread group > leader's rwsem in cgroup_fork(), always take current's rwsem. Then > you're always locking a (probably?) local rwsem and minimizing the > overhead. So not quite zero overhead in the fork path, but I'd be > surprised if it was measurable. In cgroup_attach_proc() you then have > to take the rwsem of every thread in the process. Kind of the > equivalent of a per-threadgroup big-reader lock. > > Paul Yup I think that would addres my concern (cache-line bouncing in hot clone(CLONE_THREAD) case). thanks, -serge _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
