On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 5:12 PM, Colin Cross <ccross@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > No, if you add a new process to the group while check_for_release, the > bit could get set by the add for the new process, then cleared by the > concurrently running check_for_release. OK, so we need the semantics that whenever the cgroup goes from a state of having at least one process or subdir in it, to a state of having no processes and no outstanding css references, we generate a release_agent event. I think the cleanest way to handle that is to use more bits - a counter to track processes moving into a group or child cgroup creations, and another that's synced to the value read from the first whenever we schedule a release event. A cgroup is releasable when the counters are different. Paul _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
