vatsa wrote:
> Not just this, continuing further we have more trouble:
>
>
> CPU0 (attach_task T1 to CS2) CPU1 (T1 is exiting)
>
>
> synchroni
> I will try to send out a patch later today to fix
Thanks!
> Agreed, but good to keep code clean isn't it? :)
Definitely.
--
I won't rest till it's the best ...
Programmer, Linux Scalability
Paul Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 1.925.600.0401
On Sat, Mar 24, 2007 at 09:45:50PM -0700, Paul Jackson wrote:
> Nice work - thanks. Yes, both an extra cpuset count and a negative
> cpuset count are bad news, opening the door to the usual catastrophes.
>
> Would you like the honor of submitting the patch to add a task_lock
> to cpuset_exit()?
vatsa wrote:
> Now consider:
Nice work - thanks. Yes, both an extra cpuset count and a negative
cpuset count are bad news, opening the door to the usual catastrophes.
Would you like the honor of submitting the patch to add a task_lock
to cpuset_exit()? If you do, be sure to fix, or at least rem
On Sun, 25 Mar 2007 04:21:56 +0200 Herbert Poetzl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > a) slice the machine into 128 fake NUMA nodes, use each node as the
> >basic block of memory allocation, manage the binding between these
> >memory hunks and process groups with cpusets.
>
> 128 sounds a litt
On Sun, Mar 25, 2007 at 07:58:16AM +0530, Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote:
> Not just this, continuing further we have more trouble:
>
>
> CPU0 (attach_task T1 to CS2) CPU1 (T1 is exiting)
>
On Sat, Mar 24, 2007 at 12:19:06PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Sat, 24 Mar 2007 19:38:06 +0100 Herbert Poetzl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Mar 23, 2007 at 09:42:35PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > > On Fri, 23 Mar 2007 20:30:00 +0100 Herbert Poetzl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > wrot
On Sat, Mar 24, 2007 at 06:41:28PM -0700, Paul Jackson wrote:
> > the following code becomes racy with cpuset_exit() ...
> >
> > atomic_inc(&cs->count);
> > rcu_assign_pointer(tsk->cpuset, cs);
> > task_unlock(tsk);
>
> eh ... so ... ?
>
> I don't know of any sequence whe
vatsa wrote:
> > if (tsk->flags & PF_EXITING) {
>
> What if PF_EXITING is set after this check? If that happens then,
>
> > task_unlock(tsk);
> > mutex_unlock(&callback_mutex);
> > put_task_struct(tsk);
> > return -ESRCH;
> >
On Sat, Mar 24, 2007 at 12:25:59PM -0700, Paul Jackson wrote:
> > P.S : cpuset.c checks for PF_EXITING twice in attach_task(), while this
> > patch seems to be checking only once. Is that fine?
>
> I think the cpuset code is ok, because, as you note, it locks the task,
> picks off the cpuset point
On Sat, 24 Mar 2007 19:38:06 +0100 Herbert Poetzl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 23, 2007 at 09:42:35PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > On Fri, 23 Mar 2007 20:30:00 +0100 Herbert Poetzl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > Hi Eric!
> > > Hi Folks!
> > >
> > > here is a real worl
> IMO, we need to use task_lock() in container_exit() to avoid this race.
>
> (I think this race already exists in mainline cpuset.c?)
>
> P.S : cpuset.c checks for PF_EXITING twice in attach_task(), while this
> patch seems to be checking only once. Is that fine?
I think the cpuset code is ok,
On Fri, Mar 23, 2007 at 09:42:35PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Fri, 23 Mar 2007 20:30:00 +0100 Herbert Poetzl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >
> > Hi Eric!
> > Hi Folks!
> >
> > here is a real world example result from one of my tests
> > regarding the benefit of sharing over separate memor
On Sat, Mar 24, 2007 at 10:35:37AM +0530, Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote:
> > +static int ns_create(struct container_subsys *ss, struct container *cont)
> > +{
> > + struct nscont *ns;
> > +
> > + if (!capable(CAP_SYS_ADMIN))
> > + return -EPERM;
>
> Does this check break existing namespac
On Mon, Feb 12, 2007 at 12:15:22AM -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> +static int attach_task(struct container *cont, char *pidbuf, char **ppathbuf)
> +{
> + pid_t pid;
> + struct task_struct *tsk;
> + struct container *oldcont;
> + int retval;
> +
> + if (sscanf(pidbuf, "%d", &p
On Mon, Feb 12, 2007 at 12:15:24AM -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> +static int attach_task(struct container *cont, struct task_struct *tsk)
> {
[snip]
> + for_each_subsys(h, ss) {
> + if (ss->can_attach) {
> + retval = ss->can_attach(ss, cont, tsk);
> +
16 matches
Mail list logo
