Paul Menage wrote:
> Hi Pavel,
>
> On 3/6/07, Pavel Emelianov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> diff -upr linux-2.6.20.orig/include/linux/sched.h
>> linux-2.6.20-0/include/linux/sched.h
>> --- linux-2.6.20.orig/include/linux/sched.h 2007-03-06
>> 13:33:28.000000000 +0300
>> +++ linux-2.6.20-0/include/linux/sched.h 2007-03-06
>> 13:33:28.000000000 +0300
>> @@ -1052,6 +1055,9 @@ struct task_struct {
>> #ifdef CONFIG_FAULT_INJECTION
>> int make_it_fail;
>> #endif
>> +#ifdef CONFIG_PROCESS_CONTAINER
>> + struct numproc_container *numproc_cnt;
>> +#endif
>> };
>
> Why do you need a pointer added to task_struct? One of the main points
> of the generic containers is to avoid every different subsystem and
> resource controller having to add new pointers there.
>
>> +
>> + rcu_read_lock();
>> + np = numproc_from_cont(task_container(current, &numproc_subsys));
>> + css_get_current(&np->css);
>
> There's no need to hold a reference here - by definition, the task's
> container can't go away while the task is in it.
>
> Also, shouldn't you have an attach() method to move the count from one
> container to another when a task moves?
The idea is:
Task may be "the entity that allocates the resources" and "the
entity that is a resource allocated".
When task is the first entity it may move across containers
(that is implemented in your patches). When task is a resource
it shouldn't move across containers like files or pages do.
More generally - allocated resources hold reference to original
container till they die. No resource migration is performed.
Did I express my idea cleanly?
> Paul
>
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
