Prev: [GIT] Networking
Next: [GIT PULL] first round of SCSI updates for the 2.6.36 merge window
From: Paul Menage on 3 Aug 2010 23:50
On Fri, Jul 30, 2010 at 4:57 PM, Ben Blum <bblum(a)andrew.cmu.edu> wrote:
> + * The threadgroup_fork_lock prevents threads from forking with
> + * CLONE_THREAD while held for writing. Use this for fork-sensitive
> + * threadgroup-wide operations. It's taken for reading in fork.c in
> + * copy_process().
> + * Currently only needed write-side by cgroups.
> + */
> + struct rw_semaphore threadgroup_fork_lock;
> +#endif

I'm not sure how best to word this comment, but I'd prefer something like:

"The threadgroup_fork_lock is taken in read mode during a CLONE_THREAD
fork operation; taking it in write mode prevents the owning
threadgroup from adding any new threads and thus allows you to
synchronize against the addition of unseen threads when performing
threadgroup-wide operations. New-process forks (without CLONE_THREAD)
are not affected."

As far as the #ifdef mess goes, it's true that some people don't have
CONFIG_CGROUPS defined. I'd imagine that these are likely to be
embedded systems with a fairly small number of processes and threads
per process. Are there really any such platforms where the cost of a
single extra rwsem per process is going to make a difference either in
terms of memory or lock contention? I think you should consider making
these additions unconditional.

Paul
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo(a)vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
From: Paul Menage on 4 Aug 2010 00:40
On Tue, Aug 3, 2010 at 9:33 PM, Ben Blum <bblum(a)andrew.cmu.edu> wrote:
>> As far as the #ifdef mess goes, it's true that some people don't have
>> CONFIG_CGROUPS defined. I'd imagine that these are likely to be
>> embedded systems with a fairly small number of processes and threads
>> per process. Are there really any such platforms where the cost of a
>> single extra rwsem per process is going to make a difference either in
>> terms of memory or lock contention? I think you should consider making
>> these additions unconditional.
>
> That's certainly an option, but I think it would be clean enough to put
> static inline functions just under the signal_struct definition.

Either sounds fine to me. I suspect others have a stronger opinion.

Paul
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo(a)vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
 | 
Pages: 1
Prev: [GIT] Networking
Next: [GIT PULL] first round of SCSI updates for the 2.6.36 merge window