On Fri, Jun 27, 2014 at 02:32:33PM +0800, Li Zefan wrote:
> > cgroup_mount()
> > {
> > mutex_lock();
> > lookup_cgroup_root();
> > if (root isn't killed yet)
> > root->this_better_stay_alive++;
> > mutex_unlock();
> > kernfs_mount();
> > }
> >
> > cgroup_kill_sb()
On 2014/6/25 23:00, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hey,
>
> On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 09:56:31AM +0800, Li Zefan wrote:
>>> Hmmm? Why does that matter? The only region in cgroup_mount() which
>>> needs to be put inside such mutex would be root lookup, no?
>>
>> unfortunately that won't help. I think what you
On 2014/6/25 23:00, Tejun Heo wrote:
Hey,
On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 09:56:31AM +0800, Li Zefan wrote:
Hmmm? Why does that matter? The only region in cgroup_mount() which
needs to be put inside such mutex would be root lookup, no?
unfortunately that won't help. I think what you suggest is:
On Fri, Jun 27, 2014 at 02:32:33PM +0800, Li Zefan wrote:
cgroup_mount()
{
mutex_lock();
lookup_cgroup_root();
if (root isn't killed yet)
root-this_better_stay_alive++;
mutex_unlock();
kernfs_mount();
}
cgroup_kill_sb()
{
mutex_lock();
Hey,
On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 09:56:31AM +0800, Li Zefan wrote:
> > Hmmm? Why does that matter? The only region in cgroup_mount() which
> > needs to be put inside such mutex would be root lookup, no?
>
> unfortunately that won't help. I think what you suggest is:
>
> cgroup_mount()
> {
>
Hey,
On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 09:56:31AM +0800, Li Zefan wrote:
Hmmm? Why does that matter? The only region in cgroup_mount() which
needs to be put inside such mutex would be root lookup, no?
unfortunately that won't help. I think what you suggest is:
cgroup_mount()
{
On 2014/6/25 5:01, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hello, Li.
>
> On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 09:22:00AM +0800, Li Zefan wrote:
>>> Ah, right. Gees, I'm really hating the fact that we have ->mount but
>>> not ->umount. However, can't we make it a bit simpler by just
>>> introducing a mutex protecting looking up
Hello, Li.
On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 09:22:00AM +0800, Li Zefan wrote:
> > Ah, right. Gees, I'm really hating the fact that we have ->mount but
> > not ->umount. However, can't we make it a bit simpler by just
> > introducing a mutex protecting looking up and refing up an existing
> > root and a
Hello, Li.
On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 09:22:00AM +0800, Li Zefan wrote:
Ah, right. Gees, I'm really hating the fact that we have -mount but
not -umount. However, can't we make it a bit simpler by just
introducing a mutex protecting looking up and refing up an existing
root and a sb going
On 2014/6/25 5:01, Tejun Heo wrote:
Hello, Li.
On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 09:22:00AM +0800, Li Zefan wrote:
Ah, right. Gees, I'm really hating the fact that we have -mount but
not -umount. However, can't we make it a bit simpler by just
introducing a mutex protecting looking up and refing up
On 2014/6/21 3:35, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hello, Li.
>
> Sorry about the long delay.
>
> On Thu, Jun 12, 2014 at 02:33:05PM +0800, Li Zefan wrote:
>> We've converted cgroup to kernfs so cgroup won't be intertwined with
>> vfs objects and locking, but there are dark areas.
>>
>> Run two instances of
On 2014/6/21 3:35, Tejun Heo wrote:
Hello, Li.
Sorry about the long delay.
On Thu, Jun 12, 2014 at 02:33:05PM +0800, Li Zefan wrote:
We've converted cgroup to kernfs so cgroup won't be intertwined with
vfs objects and locking, but there are dark areas.
Run two instances of this script
Hello, Li.
Sorry about the long delay.
On Thu, Jun 12, 2014 at 02:33:05PM +0800, Li Zefan wrote:
> We've converted cgroup to kernfs so cgroup won't be intertwined with
> vfs objects and locking, but there are dark areas.
>
> Run two instances of this script concurrently:
>
> for ((; ;))
>
Hello, Li.
Sorry about the long delay.
On Thu, Jun 12, 2014 at 02:33:05PM +0800, Li Zefan wrote:
We've converted cgroup to kernfs so cgroup won't be intertwined with
vfs objects and locking, but there are dark areas.
Run two instances of this script concurrently:
for ((; ;))
{
We've converted cgroup to kernfs so cgroup won't be intertwined with
vfs objects and locking, but there are dark areas.
Run two instances of this script concurrently:
for ((; ;))
{
mount -t cgroup -o cpuacct xxx /cgroup
umount /cgroup
}
After a while, I saw two mount
We've converted cgroup to kernfs so cgroup won't be intertwined with
vfs objects and locking, but there are dark areas.
Run two instances of this script concurrently:
for ((; ;))
{
mount -t cgroup -o cpuacct xxx /cgroup
umount /cgroup
}
After a while, I saw two mount
16 matches
Mail list logo
