Re: [PATCH 2/5] softlockup: make detector be aware of task switch of processes hogging cpu

[Ingo Molnar]

* Don Zickus <dzickus@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> > > > So I agree with the motivation of this improvement, but 
> > > > is this implementation namespace-safe?
> > > 
> > > What namespace are you worried about colliding with?  I 
> > > thought softlockup_ would provide the safety??  Maybe I 
> > > am missing something obvious. :-(
> > 
> > I meant PID namespaces - a PID in itself isn't guaranteed 
> > to be unique across the system.
> 
> Ah, I don't think we thought about that.  Is there a better 
> way to do this?  Is there a domain id or something that can 
> be OR'd with the pid?

What is always unique is the task pointer itself. We use pids 
when we interface with user-space - but we don't really do that 
here, right?

Thanks,

	Ingo
--
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/