On Wed, 09 Jul 2008 14:58:43 -0700 Matt Helsley <matthltc@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Tue, 2008-07-08 at 13:07 -0700, Paul Menage wrote: > > On Tue, Jul 8, 2008 at 1:06 PM, Paul Menage <menage@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On Tue, Jul 8, 2008 at 12:39 PM, Matt Helsley <matthltc@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > >> > > >> One is to try and disallow users from moving frozen tasks. That doesn't > > >> seem like a good approach since it would require a new cgroups interface > > >> "can_detach()". > > > > > > Detaching from the old cgroup happens at the same time as attaching to > > > the new cgroup, so can_attach() would work here. > > Update: I've made a patch implementing this. However it might be better > to just modify attach() to thaw the moving task rather than disallow > moving the frozen task. Serge, Cedric, Kame-san, do you have any > thoughts on which is more useful and/or intuitive? > Thank you for explanation in previous mail. Hmm, just thawing seems atractive but it will confuse people (I think). I think some kind of process-group is freezed by this freezer and "moving freezed task" is wrong(unexpected) operation in general. And there will be no demand to do that from users. I think just taking "moving freezed task" as error-operation and returning -EBUSY is better. Thanks, -Kame > > And the whole can_attach()/attach() protocol needs reworking anyway, > > see my email (hopefully) later today. > > > > Paul > > Interesting. I look forward to seeing this. > > Cheers, > -Matt > > _______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
