From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1758589AbXJCU6m (ORCPT ); Wed, 3 Oct 2007 16:58:42 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752371AbXJCU6e (ORCPT ); Wed, 3 Oct 2007 16:58:34 -0400 Received: from smtp-out.google.com ([216.239.33.17]:47197 "EHLO smtp-out.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752033AbXJCU6d (ORCPT ); Wed, 3 Oct 2007 16:58:33 -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=gkEAQw/GPLeb9EpQH8Y18y/hrcPQP2aOO6Tl24ItCrnCMC7YdPcqFSbiek42w502B MlYQ9f/hye5Pm+x475PPA== Message-ID: <6599ad830710031358w515eb90do2596c0766f989783@mail.gmail.com> Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2007 13:58:26 -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: <20071003135232.af01a624.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> <6599ad830710031331h15d35e90lc63d845efd2de6f5@mail.gmail.com> <20071003135232.af01a624.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: > > But now (correct me if I'm wrong here) cgroups has a per-cgroup task > list, and the above loop has cost linear in the number of tasks > actually in the cgroup, plus (unfortunate but necessary and tolerable) > the cost of taking a global css_set_lock, right? Yes. > > And I take it the above code snipped is missing the cgroup_iter_start, > correct? Oops, yes. Paul