Re: [PATCH v7 1/3] cgroups: read-write lock CLONE_THREAD forkingper threadgroup

[Andrew Morton]

On Fri, 4 Feb 2011 16:25:15 -0500
Ben Blum <bblum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> On Mon, Jan 24, 2011 at 01:05:29PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > On Sun, 26 Dec 2010 07:09:51 -0500
> > Ben Blum <bblum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > 
> > > Adds functionality to read/write lock CLONE_THREAD fork()ing per-threadgroup
> > > 
> > > From: Ben Blum <bblum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > 
> > > This patch adds an rwsem that lives in a threadgroup's signal_struct that's
> > > taken for reading in the fork path, under CONFIG_CGROUPS. If another part of
> > > the kernel later wants to use such a locking mechanism, the CONFIG_CGROUPS
> > > ifdefs should be changed to a higher-up flag that CGROUPS and the other system
> > > would both depend on.
> > > 
> > > This is a pre-patch for cgroup-procs-write.patch.
> > > 
> > > ...
> > >
> > > +/* See the declaration of threadgroup_fork_lock in signal_struct. */
> > > +#ifdef CONFIG_CGROUPS
> > > +static inline void threadgroup_fork_read_lock(struct task_struct *tsk)
> > > +{
> > > +	down_read(&tsk->signal->threadgroup_fork_lock);
> > > +}
> > > +static inline void threadgroup_fork_read_unlock(struct task_struct *tsk)
> > > +{
> > > +	up_read(&tsk->signal->threadgroup_fork_lock);
> > > +}
> > > +static inline void threadgroup_fork_write_lock(struct task_struct *tsk)
> > > +{
> > > +	down_write(&tsk->signal->threadgroup_fork_lock);
> > > +}
> > > +static inline void threadgroup_fork_write_unlock(struct task_struct *tsk)
> > > +{
> > > +	up_write(&tsk->signal->threadgroup_fork_lock);
> > > +}
> > > +#else
> > 
> > Risky. sched.h doesn't include rwsem.h.
> > 
> > We could make it do so, but almost every compilation unit in the kernel
> > includes sched.h.  It would be nicer to make the kernel build
> > finer-grained, rather than blunter-grained.  Don't be afraid to add new
> > header files if that is one way of doing this!
> 
> Hmm, good point. But there's also:
> 
> +#ifdef CONFIG_CGROUPS
> +       struct rw_semaphore threadgroup_fork_lock;
> +#endif
> 
> in the signal_struct, also in sched.h, which needs to be there. Or I
> could change it to a struct pointer with a forward incomplete
> declaration above, and kmalloc/kfree it? I don't like adding more
> alloc/free calls but don't know if it's more or less important than
> header granularity.

What about adding a new header file which includes rwsem.h and sched.h
and then defines the new interfaces?
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/