On 4/5/07, Pavel Emelianov <xemul@sw.ru> wrote:
> > That sort of implies that we need to split the container fork
> > mechanism up into two parts, one early to add the refcount to the
> > parent's container_group, and one late to handle the callbacks if
> > desired. But that should be pretty straightforward.
>
> Splitting sounds good. I'll try to prepare an appropriate patch.

I just did this in my tree. It's a pretty simple patch, but it's a bit ugly.

> >> 2. early need for rss containers (earlier than initcalls
> >>    are called)
> >
> > Couldn't you copy the way cpuset_init_early() works?
>
> I did this in my previous version of rss container,
> but I think it can be generalized. This is initialization
> code that must not be nice-looking, but if it can be it
> should be.
>

Agreed, nice looking code is better :-)

Did you have any suggestions, other than moving container_init()
earlier in the boot process?

Paul
_______________________________________________
Containers mailing list
Containers@lists.linux-foundation.org
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers

Paul Menage wrote:
> On 4/5/07, Pavel Emelianov <xemul@sw.ru> wrote:
>> > That sort of implies that we need to split the container fork
>> > mechanism up into two parts, one early to add the refcount to the
>> > parent's container_group, and one late to handle the callbacks if
>> > desired. But that should be pretty straightforward.
>>
>> Splitting sounds good. I'll try to prepare an appropriate patch.
> 
> I just did this in my tree. It's a pretty simple patch, but it's a bit
> ugly.

OK. When you send it we'll see what can be improved.

>> >> 2. early need for rss containers (earlier than initcalls
>> >>    are called)
>> >
>> > Couldn't you copy the way cpuset_init_early() works?
>>
>> I did this in my previous version of rss container,
>> but I think it can be generalized. This is initialization
>> code that must not be nice-looking, but if it can be it
>> should be.
>>
> 
> Agreed, nice looking code is better :-)
> 
> Did you have any suggestions, other than moving container_init()
> earlier in the boot process?

Right now I do not. Calling container_init_eary() is OK from
my POV. What I do not like is that I have to reinitialize
container->create() callback. Maybe it's better not to call
->create in container_register_subsys() at all?

> Paul
> 

_______________________________________________
Containers mailing list
Containers@lists.linux-foundation.org
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers