On 3/7/07, Srivatsa Vaddagiri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Mon, Feb 12, 2007 at 12:15:23AM -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > - mutex_lock(&callback_mutex); > > - list_add(&cs->sibling, &cs->parent->children); > > + cont->cpuset = cs; > > + cs->container = cont; > > number_of_cpusets++; > > - mutex_unlock(&callback_mutex); > > What's the rule to read/write number_of_cpusets? The earlier cpuset code was > incrementing/decrementing under callback_mutex, but now we aren't. How safe is > that?
We're still inside manage_mutex, so we guarantee that no-one else is changing it. > > The earlier cpuset code also was reading number_of_cpusets w/o the > callback_mutex held (atleast in cpuset_zone_allowed_softwall). Is that safe? Yes, I think so. Unless every memory allocator was to hold a lock for the duration of alloc_pages(), number_of_cpusets can theoretically be out of date by the time you're using it. But since the process could have allocated just before you created the first cpuset and moved it into that cpuset anywa, it's not really a race (and the consequences are inconsequential). Paul ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys-and earn cash http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV _______________________________________________ ckrm-tech mailing list https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ckrm-tech
