Re: [PATCH 3/6] cgroup: introduce cgroup_taskset and use it insubsys->can_attach(), cancel_attach() and attach()

[Tejun Heo]

Hello,

On Thu, Aug 25, 2011 at 02:14:12AM -0700, Paul Menage wrote:
> The general idea of passing consistent information to all *attach
> methods seems good, but isn't it simpler to just fix up the various
> method signatures?

I think having separate ->attach() and ->attach_task() is inherently
broken.  Look at the memcg discussion I had in this thread for
reference and as soon as we need to do something across the tasks
being migrated, iteration-by-callback becomes very painful.
e.g. let's say memcg wants to find the mm->owner and wants to print
warning or fail if that doesn't work out.  How would that be
implemented if it's iterating by callback.

> The whole point of having *attach() and *attach_task() was to minimize
> the amount of boilerplate (in this case, iterating across a new
> cgroup_taskset abstraction) in the subsystems, leaving that to the
> cgroups framework.

Yeah, I agree with making things easier for subsystems but I violently
disagree that iteration-by-callback is helpful in any way.  If
control-loop style iterator is at all possible, it's almost always
better to go that way.

Thanks.

-- 
tejun
--
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/