Hello, On Thu, Aug 25, 2011 at 01:51:39AM -0700, Paul Menage wrote: > In particular, making the group flex-array entries contain both a task > and a cgroup appears to be only necessary in order to skip tasks where > new_cgroup == old_cgroup. Can't we get the same effect by simply > leaving all such tasks out of the flex-array in the first place? In general, the interface *should* give full information to subsys methods at each stage including the old cgroup each task is migrating from and the new cgroup; otherwise, they soon end up developing weird acrobatics to work around shortcomings in the interface or being outright buggy, so let's please look past the fixes which are necessary immediately and think about what a proper interface should look like. I mean, seriously, why did ->attach_task() take @new_cgroup when it's called after migration happened while ->attach() had access to the old cgroup of the last iterated task in the group? What the hell does that even mean? And, why is this a big change? The big part is change of interface but that we need to do anyway. This one is just adding an entry to the flex array. Thanks. -- tejun _______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
