Re: [PATCH v4 1/2] cgroups: read-write lock CLONE_THREAD forking per threadgroup

From: Paul Menage
Date: Wed Aug 04 2010 - 00:34:54 EST

On Tue, Aug 3, 2010 at 9:33 PM, Ben Blum <bblum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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.

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at