Re: [ckrm-tech] [RFC] Resource Management - Infrastructure choices

[Paul Menage]

On 10/30/06, Paul Jackson <pj@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> I get away with this in the cpuset code because:
>  1) I have the cpuset pointer directly in 'task_struct', so don't
>     have to chase down anything, for each task, while scanning the
>     task list.  I just have to ask, for each task, if its cpuset
>     pointer points to the cpuset of interest.

That's the same when it's transferred to containers - each task_struct
now has a container pointer, and you can just see whether the
container pointer matches the container that you're interested in.

>  2) I don't care if I get an inconsistent answer, so I don't have
>     to lock each task, nor do I even lockout the rest of the cpuset
>     code.  All I know, at the end of the scan, is that each task that
>     I claim is attached to the cpuset in question was attached to it at
>     some point during my scan, not necessarilly all at the same time.

Well, anything that can be accomplished from within the tasklist_lock
can get a consistent result without any additional lists or
synchronization - it seems that it would be good to come up with a
real-world example of something that *can't* make do with this before
adding extra book-keeping.

Paul
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/