Home » Mailing lists » Devel » [PATCH 0/9] Containers (V9): Generic Process Containers
| Re: [ckrm-tech] [PATCH 3/9] Containers (V9): Add tasks file interface [message #12516 is a reply to message #12505] |
Wed, 02 May 2007 03:58   |
Balbir Singh
Messages: 491
Registered: August 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Paul Menage wrote:
> On 5/1/07, Balbir Singh <balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
>> > + if (container_is_removed(cont)) {
>> > + retval = -ENODEV;
>> > + goto out2;
>> > + }
>>
>> Can't we make this check prior to kmalloc() and copy_from_user()?
>
> We could but I'm not sure what it would buy us - we'd be optimizing
> for the case that essentially never occurs.
>
I am not sure about the never occurs part of it, because we check
for the condition, so it could occur. I agree, it is a premature
optimization and could wait a little longer before going in.
>>
>>
>>
>> > +int container_task_count(const struct container *cont) {
>> > + int count = 0;
>> > + struct task_struct *g, *p;
>> > + struct container_subsys_state *css;
>> > + int subsys_id;
>> > + get_first_subsys(cont, &css, &subsys_id);
>> > +
>> > + read_lock(&tasklist_lock);
>>
>> Can be replaced with rcu_read_lock() and rcu_read_unlock()
>
> Are you sure about that? I see many users of
> do_each_thread()/while_each_thread() taking a lock on tasklist_lock,
> and only one (fs/binfmt_elf.c) that's clearly relying on an RCU
> critical sections. Documentation?
>
I suspect they are all pending conversions to be made.
Eric is the expert on this. Meanwhile here's a couple of
pointers. Quoting from the second URL
"We don't need the tasklist_lock to safely iterate through processes
anymore."
http://www.linuxjournal.com/article/6993 (please see incremental use
of RCU) and
http://kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/akpm/patches/2.6/2 .6.17/2.6.17-mm2/broken-out/proc-remove-tasklist_lock-from-p roc_pid_readdir.patch
>>
>> Any chance we could get a per-container task list? It will
>> help subsystem writers as well.
>
> It would be possible, yes - but we probably wouldn't want the overhead
> (additional ref counts and list manipulations on every fork/exit) of
> it on by default. We could make it a config option that particular
> subsystems could select.
>
> I guess the question is how useful is this really, compared to just
> doing a do_each_thread() and seeing which tasks are in the container?
> Certainly that's a non-trivial operation, but in what circumstances is
> it really necessary to do it?
>
> Paul
--
Warm Regards,
Balbir Singh
Linux Technology Center
IBM, ISTL
|
|
|
|
Current Time: Sat Sep 20 20:27:14 GMT 2025
Total time taken to generate the page: 0.05875 seconds
|
OpenVZ Forum
Members
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
