lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2008]   [Jun]   [20]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [RFC] [PATCH] cgroup: add "procs" control file
On Wed, Jun 18, 2008 at 1:02 AM, Li Zefan <lizf@cn.fujitsu.com> wrote:
> - What to do if the attaching of a thread failed? continue to attach
> other threads, or stop and return error?

I think this is something that will have to be handled in the design
of transactional cgroup attach.

> - When a sub-thread of a process is in the cgroup, but not its thread
> cgroup leader, what to do when 'cat procs'? just skip those threads?

Sounds reasonable. I think that in general the procs file is more
useful as a write API than a read API anyway, for the reasons you
indicate there.


> + tsk = attach_get_task(cgrp, pidbuf);
> + if (IS_ERR(tsk))
> + return PTR_ERR(tsk);
> +
> + /* attach thread group leader */

Should we check that this is in fact a thread group leader?

> +
> + /* attach all sub-threads */
> + rcu_read_lock();

cgroup_attach_task() calls synchronize_rcu(), so it doesn't seem
likely that rcu_read_lock() is useful here, and might even deadlock?

What are you trying to protect against with the RCU lock?

> {
> + .name = "procs",

Maybe call it "cgroup.procs" to avoid name clashes in future? We had a
debate a while back where I tried to get the cgroup files like "tasks"
and "notify_on_release" prefixed with "cgroup." , which were argued
against on grounds of backwards compatibility. But there's no
compatibility issue here. The only question is whether it's too ugly
to have the legacy filenames without a prefix and the new ones with a
prefix.

Paul


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2008-06-20 07:41    [W:0.067 / U:1.820 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site