From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932471AbbERQet (ORCPT ); Mon, 18 May 2015 12:34:49 -0400 Received: from mail-qc0-f176.google.com ([209.85.216.176]:35602 "EHLO mail-qc0-f176.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932160AbbERQep (ORCPT ); Mon, 18 May 2015 12:34:45 -0400 Date: Mon, 18 May 2015 12:34:40 -0400 From: Tejun Heo To: lizefan@huawei.com Cc: cgroups@vger.kernel.org, mingo@redhat.com, peterz@infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCHSET] cgroup, sched: restructure threadgroup locking and replace it with a percpu_rwsem Message-ID: <20150518163440.GA24861@htj.duckdns.org> References: <1431549318-16756-1-git-send-email-tj@kernel.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1431549318-16756-1-git-send-email-tj@kernel.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, May 13, 2015 at 04:35:15PM -0400, Tejun Heo wrote: > threadgroup locking was added because cgroup needs threadgroups to > stay stable across attach operations. It was implemented as a > per-signal_struct generic locking mechanism so that other users which > require threadgroups stable across blocking operations can use it too; > however, it hasn't grown any other use cases and still conditionalized > on CONFIG_CGROUPS. Ingo, Peter, what do you guys think? If you guys are okay with the changes, how do you want to route the patches? Given that it's mostly cgroup-specific and there are more cgroup changes depending on these, it'd be the easiest to route these through the cgroup tree but putting it elsewhere and pulling into cgroup is fine too. Thanks. -- tejun