On 03/20, Tejun Heo wrote:
>
> On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 11:35 AM, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > then we need "do not abuse ->cred_guard_mutex in threadgroup_lock()"
> > acked by you and Li. Please let me know if I should resend it.
>
> Yeah, we want that one regardless of this one. Please feel free to a
On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 11:35 AM, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> then we need "do not abuse ->cred_guard_mutex in threadgroup_lock()"
> acked by you and Li. Please let me know if I should resend it.
Yeah, we want that one regardless of this one. Please feel free to add
my Acked-by (if I hadn't acked alre
On 03/20, Tejun Heo wrote:
>
> So, let's leave the locking in cgroup alone. I like
> cgroup_mutex to be the outer one.
OK... but sorry, I am a bit confused.
then we need "do not abuse ->cred_guard_mutex in threadgroup_lock()"
acked by you and Li. Please let me know if I should resend it.
Oleg.
On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 08:58:08AM +0800, Li Zefan wrote:
> On 2013/3/20 6:02, Tejun Heo wrote:
> > It doesn't make sense to nest cgroup_mutex inside threadgroup_lock
> > when it should be outer to most all locks used by all cgroup
> > controllers. It was nested inside threadgroup_lock only becaus
On 2013/3/20 6:02, Tejun Heo wrote:
> It doesn't make sense to nest cgroup_mutex inside threadgroup_lock
> when it should be outer to most all locks used by all cgroup
> controllers. It was nested inside threadgroup_lock only because some
> controllers were abusing cgroup_mutex inside controllers
5 matches
Mail list logo
