From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1758521AbXJCPv5 (ORCPT ); Wed, 3 Oct 2007 11:51:57 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1755508AbXJCPvt (ORCPT ); Wed, 3 Oct 2007 11:51:49 -0400 Received: from smtp-out.google.com ([216.239.45.13]:18190 "EHLO smtp-out.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755251AbXJCPvt (ORCPT ); Wed, 3 Oct 2007 11:51:49 -0400 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; s=beta; d=google.com; c=nofws; q=dns; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to: mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding: content-disposition:references; b=gM2PfA9vdyfnLiZVwmo0mxR2dTi4B+4/gUDB9bIPMpqJU9Xzk73+kjpXMN3cb0/rS JW6QWYq93vLgT+jcGYeMg== Message-ID: <6599ad830710030851jb44f00ft9634f9381218b6e9@mail.gmail.com> Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2007 08:51:41 -0700 From: "Paul Menage" To: "Paul Jackson" Subject: Re: [PATCH] task containersv11 add tasks file interface fix for cpusets Cc: "Andrew Morton" , "Nick Piggin" , "Peter Zijlstra" , "Serge E. Hallyn" , "Cedric Le Goater" , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, "Eric W. Biederman" , "David Rientjes" , "Vaidyanathan Srinivasan" , "Pavel Emelianov" , containers@lists.osdl.org, balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com In-Reply-To: <20071003084241.24279.62099.sendpatchset@jackhammer.engr.sgi.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <20071003084241.24279.62099.sendpatchset@jackhammer.engr.sgi.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 10/3/07, Paul Jackson wrote: > From: Paul Jackson > > The code in kernel/cgroup.c attach_task() which skips the > attachment of a task to the group it is already in has to be > removed. Cpusets depends on reattaching a task to its current > cpuset, in order to trigger updating the cpus_allowed mask in the > task struct. Can you explain a bit more about why this is needed? (i.e. specific scenarios where cpusets will break without this change). What triggers the reattach in normal use? Something from userspace? Paul