From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1758544AbXJCUb7 (ORCPT ); Wed, 3 Oct 2007 16:31:59 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1755278AbXJCUbw (ORCPT ); Wed, 3 Oct 2007 16:31:52 -0400 Received: from smtp-out.google.com ([216.239.33.17]:35477 "EHLO smtp-out.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755565AbXJCUbv (ORCPT ); Wed, 3 Oct 2007 16:31:51 -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=kFiiUg7FJtwTg9jJdNCKm3vXKy5epeGWE4Bmy+ATqvlcCKn+tFflgZg5kBRlgUIeG qZD83gfYubBI4pJsmv2uQ== Message-ID: <6599ad830710031331h15d35e90lc63d845efd2de6f5@mail.gmail.com> Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2007 13:31:17 -0700 From: "Paul Menage" To: "Paul Jackson" Subject: Re: [PATCH] task containersv11 add tasks file interface fix for cpusets Cc: akpm@linux-foundation.org, nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au, a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl, serue@us.ibm.com, clg@fr.ibm.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, ebiederm@xmission.com, rientjes@google.com, svaidy@linux.vnet.ibm.com, xemul@openvz.org, containers@lists.osdl.org, balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com In-Reply-To: <20071003131632.fed4b848.pj@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> <6599ad830710030851jb44f00ft9634f9381218b6e9@mail.gmail.com> <20071003105817.7adf6516.pj@sgi.com> <6599ad830710031110r1a74eafej56f20cc33e72ac81@mail.gmail.com> <20071003131632.fed4b848.pj@sgi.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 10/3/07, Paul Jackson wrote: > > So far as I can tell, this patch just removes a minor optimization, It's not minor for any subsystem that has a non-trivial attach() operation. > > Any further suggestions, or embarrassing (;) questions? > What was wrong with my suggestion from a couple of emails back? Adding the following in cpuset_attach(): struct cgroup_iter it; struct task_struct *p; while ((p = cgroup_iter_next(cs->css.cgroup, &it))) { set_cpus_allowed(p, cs->cpus_allowed); } cgroup_iter_end(cs->css.cgroup, &it); Paul