* men...@google.com men...@google.com [2009-07-13 23:49:16]:
On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 10:56 PM, Balbir Singhbal...@linux.vnet.ibm.com
wrote:
Waiting for the next scheduling point might be too long, since a
thread can block for arbitrary amounts of time and keeping the marker
around for
On Tue, Jul 14, 2009 at 3:16 AM, Balbir Singhbal...@linux.vnet.ibm.com wrote:
* men...@google.com men...@google.com [2009-07-13 23:49:16]:
As a first cut, we were planning to add an rwsem that gets taken for
read in cgroup_fork(), released in cgroup_post_fork(), and taken for
write when moving
On Tue, Jul 14, 2009 at 10:34 AM, Benjamin Blumbb...@google.com wrote:
procs file). While that's preferable to a global lock, if we can add a
field to task_struct, a (lockless) flag-based approach might be
possible.
I've been trying to think of a way to do that. AFAICS the only way to
do that
On Tue, Jul 14, 2009 at 10:43 AM, Paul Menagemen...@google.com wrote:
I've been trying to think of a way to do that. AFAICS the only way to
do that reliably would be to move the call to cgroup_fork() that hooks
into the parent's cgroup inside the lock on the group leader's thread
list, and
On Tue, Jul 14, 2009 at 01:38:30PM -0700, Paul Menage wrote:
On Tue, Jul 14, 2009 at 10:43 AM, Paul Menagemen...@google.com wrote:
I've been trying to think of a way to do that. AFAICS the only way to
do that reliably would be to move the call to cgroup_fork() that hooks
into the parent's
* men...@google.com men...@google.com [2009-07-10 16:58:23]:
On Sat, Jul 4, 2009 at 11:38 PM, Balbir Singhbal...@linux.vnet.ibm.com
wrote:
Paul, I don't see an interface to migrate all procs or at-least I
can't read it in the changelog. As discussed in the containers
mini-summit in
On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 5:11 AM, Balbir Singhbal...@linux.vnet.ibm.com wrote:
How about lazy migration? Mark a group as to move when the kernel sees
it next for scheduling.
Waiting for the next scheduling point might be too long, since a
thread can block for arbitrary amounts of time and
* men...@google.com men...@google.com [2009-07-13 09:26:26]:
On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 5:11 AM, Balbir Singhbal...@linux.vnet.ibm.com
wrote:
How about lazy migration? Mark a group as to move when the kernel sees
it next for scheduling.
Waiting for the next scheduling point might be too
On Sat, Jul 4, 2009 at 11:38 PM, Balbir Singhbal...@linux.vnet.ibm.com wrote:
Paul, I don't see an interface to migrate all procs or at-least I
can't read it in the changelog. As discussed in the containers
mini-summit in 2008, it would be a nice thing to have (I've not looked
at the
* men...@google.com men...@google.com [2009-07-02 16:26:15]:
The following series (written by Ben Blum) adds a cgroup.procs file
to each cgroup that reports unique tgids rather than pids, and fixes a
pid namespace bug in the existing tasks file that could cause
readers in different namespaces
Paul Menage wrote:
The following series (written by Ben Blum) adds a cgroup.procs file
This is rather useful. :)
to each cgroup that reports unique tgids rather than pids, and fixes a
pid namespace bug in the existing tasks file that could cause
readers in different namespaces to interfere
11 matches
Mail list logo
