Paul Menage wrote:
> On 2/13/07, Pavel Emelianov <xemul@sw.ru> wrote:
>>
>> I have implementation that moves arbitrary task :)
> 
> Is that the one that calls stop_machine() in order to move a task
> around? That seemed a little heavyweight ...

Nope :) I've rewritten it completely.

>> May be we can do context (container-on-task) handling lockless?
> 
> What did you have in mind?

The example patch is attached. Fits 2.6.20-rc6-mm3.

>> > I thought that we solved that problem by having a tmp_bc field in the
>> > task_struct that would take precedence over the main bc if it was
>> > non-null?
>>
>> Of course, but I'm commenting this patchset which doesn't have
>> this facility.
> 
> OK, I can add the concept in to the example too.
> 
> Paul
>