|From:||Tejun Heo <email@example.com>|
|To:||firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org|
|Subject:||[PATCHSET] cgroup: introduce cgroup_taskset and consolidate subsys methods|
|Date:||Wed, 24 Aug 2011 00:19:54 +0200|
|Cc:||email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com|
Hello, cgroup has grown quite some number of subsys methods. Some of them are overlapping, inconsistent with each other and called under different conditions depending on whether they're called for a single task or whole process. Unfortunately, these callbacks are complicated and incomplete at the same time. * ->attach_task() is called after migration for task attach but before for process. * Ditto for ->pre_attach(). * ->can_attach_task() is called for every task in the thread group but ->attach_task() skips the ones which don't actually change cgroups. * Task attach becomes noop if the task isn't actually moving. Process attach is always performed. * ->attach_task() doesn't (or at least aren't supposed to) have access to the old cgroup. * During cancel, there's no way to access the affected tasks. This patchset introduces cgroup_taskset along with some accessors and iterator, updates methods to use it, consolidates usages and drops superflous methods. It contains the following six patches. 0001-cgroup-subsys-attach_task-should-be-called-after-mig.patch 0002-cgroup-improve-old-cgroup-handling-in-cgroup_attach_.patch 0003-cgroup-introduce-cgroup_taskset-and-use-it-in-subsys.patch 0004-cgroup-don-t-use-subsys-can_attach_task-or-attach_ta.patch 0005-cgroup-cpuset-don-t-use-ss-pre_attach.patch 0006-cgroup-kill-subsys-can_attach_task-pre_attach-and-at.patch and is based on the current linux-pm/pm-freezer (7b5b95b3f5 "freezer: remove should_send_signal() and update frozen()"), and available in the following git tree. git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/tj/misc.git freezer I based this on top of pm-freezer because cgroup_freezer changes conflict (easy to resolve but still) and I'm planning on making further changes to cgroup_freezer which will depend on both freezer and cgroup changes. How should we route these changes? 1. As this patchset would affect other cgroup changes, it makes sense to route these through the cgroup branch (BTW, where is it?) and propagate things there. In that case, I'll re-spin the patches on top of that tree and send a pull request for the merged branch to Rafael. 2. Alternatively, if cgroup isn't expected to have too extensive changes in this cycle, we can just funnel all these through Rafael's tree. 3. Yet another choice would be applying these on Rafael's tree and then pull that into cgroup tree as further changes aren't gonna affect cgroup all that much. What do you guys think? Thank you. Documentation/cgroups/cgroups.txt | 46 +++----- block/blk-cgroup.c | 45 +++++--- include/linux/cgroup.h | 31 ++++- kernel/cgroup.c | 200 ++++++++++++++++++++++++-------------- kernel/cgroup_freezer.c | 16 --- kernel/cpuset.c | 105 +++++++++---------- kernel/events/core.c | 13 +- kernel/sched.c | 31 +++-- mm/memcontrol.c | 16 +-- security/device_cgroup.c | 7 - 10 files changed, 289 insertions(+), 221 deletions(-) -- tejun -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to firstname.lastname@example.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Copyright © 2011, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds