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

From: Ben Blum
Date: Fri Aug 06 2010 - 02:03:58 EST

On Tue, Aug 03, 2010 at 09:34:22PM -0700, Paul Menage wrote:
> 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.
> Paul

Any other votes? One set of static inline functions (I'd call them
threadgroup_fork_{read,write}_{un,}lock) or just remove the ifdefs
entirely? I'm inclined to go with the former.

-- Ben
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