On Fri, 4 Feb 2011 16:25:15 -0500
Ben Blum <bblum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 24, 2011 at 01:05:29PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > On Sun, 26 Dec 2010 07:09:51 -0500
> > Ben Blum <bblum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > > Adds functionality to read/write lock CLONE_THREAD fork()ing per-threadgroup
> > >
> > > From: Ben Blum <bblum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > >
> > > This patch adds an rwsem that lives in a threadgroup's signal_struct that's
> > > taken for reading in the fork path, under CONFIG_CGROUPS. If another part of
> > > the kernel later wants to use such a locking mechanism, the CONFIG_CGROUPS
> > > ifdefs should be changed to a higher-up flag that CGROUPS and the other system
> > > would both depend on.
> > >
> > > This is a pre-patch for cgroup-procs-write.patch.
> > >
> > > ...
> > >
> > > +/* See the declaration of threadgroup_fork_lock in signal_struct. */
> > > +#ifdef CONFIG_CGROUPS
> > > +static inline void threadgroup_fork_read_lock(struct task_struct *tsk)
> > > +{
> > > + down_read(&tsk->signal->threadgroup_fork_lock);
> > > +}
> > > +static inline void threadgroup_fork_read_unlock(struct task_struct *tsk)
> > > +{
> > > + up_read(&tsk->signal->threadgroup_fork_lock);
> > > +}
> > > +static inline void threadgroup_fork_write_lock(struct task_struct *tsk)
> > > +{
> > > + down_write(&tsk->signal->threadgroup_fork_lock);
> > > +}
> > > +static inline void threadgroup_fork_write_unlock(struct task_struct *tsk)
> > > +{
> > > + up_write(&tsk->signal->threadgroup_fork_lock);
> > > +}
> > > +#else
> >
> > Risky. sched.h doesn't include rwsem.h.
> >
> > We could make it do so, but almost every compilation unit in the kernel
> > includes sched.h. It would be nicer to make the kernel build
> > finer-grained, rather than blunter-grained. Don't be afraid to add new
> > header files if that is one way of doing this!
>
> Hmm, good point. But there's also:
>
> +#ifdef CONFIG_CGROUPS
> + struct rw_semaphore threadgroup_fork_lock;
> +#endif
>
> in the signal_struct, also in sched.h, which needs to be there. Or I
> could change it to a struct pointer with a forward incomplete
> declaration above, and kmalloc/kfree it? I don't like adding more
> alloc/free calls but don't know if it's more or less important than
> header granularity.
What about adding a new header file which includes rwsem.h and sched.h
and then defines the new interfaces?
_______________________________________________
Containers mailing list
Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
