On 10/30/06, Paul Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I get away with this in the cpuset code because: > 1) I have the cpuset pointer directly in 'task_struct', so don't > have to chase down anything, for each task, while scanning the > task list. I just have to ask, for each task, if its cpuset > pointer points to the cpuset of interest.
That's the same when it's transferred to containers - each task_struct now has a container pointer, and you can just see whether the container pointer matches the container that you're interested in. > 2) I don't care if I get an inconsistent answer, so I don't have > to lock each task, nor do I even lockout the rest of the cpuset > code. All I know, at the end of the scan, is that each task that > I claim is attached to the cpuset in question was attached to it at > some point during my scan, not necessarilly all at the same time. Well, anything that can be accomplished from within the tasklist_lock can get a consistent result without any additional lists or synchronization - it seems that it would be good to come up with a real-world example of something that *can't* make do with this before adding extra book-keeping. Paul ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Using Tomcat but need to do more? Need to support web services, security? Get stuff done quickly with pre-integrated technology to make your job easier Download IBM WebSphere Application Server v.1.0.1 based on Apache Geronimo http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnk&kid=120709&bid=263057&dat=121642 _______________________________________________ ckrm-tech mailing list https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ckrm-tech
