From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755861AbZHEQL4 (ORCPT ); Wed, 5 Aug 2009 12:11:56 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1755797AbZHEQLz (ORCPT ); Wed, 5 Aug 2009 12:11:55 -0400 Received: from smtp-out.google.com ([216.239.33.17]:39967 "EHLO smtp-out.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755742AbZHEQLq (ORCPT ); Wed, 5 Aug 2009 12:11:46 -0400 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; s=beta; d=google.com; c=nofws; q=dns; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to: content-type:content-transfer-encoding:x-system-of-record; b=lSXzUFdt03oqr4LrGXcss/NAOUAaln3Qz0FKjs3Cb2h9ifG6vTRmYW5zgoD+kfE1u TinTsO9wHaDc9sjNHhZmQ== MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20090805102057.GT29252@hawkmoon.kerlabs.com> References: <20090731012908.27908.62208.stgit@hastromil.mtv.corp.google.com> <20090731015154.27908.9639.stgit@hastromil.mtv.corp.google.com> <20090803175452.GA5481@us.ibm.com> <2f86c2480908031113y525b6cbdhe418b8a0364c7760@mail.gmail.com> <20090803185556.GA8469@us.ibm.com> <20090803194555.GA10158@us.ibm.com> <6599ad830908041148h6d3f3e9bxfef9f3eedec0ab6d@mail.gmail.com> <2f86c2480908041214r1f23c1b7q9a25b04e26c92a1a@mail.gmail.com> <6599ad830908041228w67bc6f7fh57e28f244e1923b3@mail.gmail.com> <20090805102057.GT29252@hawkmoon.kerlabs.com> Date: Wed, 5 Aug 2009 09:11:40 -0700 Message-ID: <6599ad830908050911t6f23f810i65fe8fe17f3ee698@mail.gmail.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH 6/6] Makes procs file writable to move all threads by tgid at once From: Paul Menage To: Paul Menage , Benjamin Blum , containers@lists.linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-System-Of-Record: true Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 3:20 AM, Louis Rilling wrote: > > The downside of this is teaching lockdep about this recursive locking. Not that > simple actually... Don't we just give each thread's lock its own lock class? That's what we did for the cgroup hierarchy_mutex. > so that such cases are currently handled using a higher-level > lock that prevents races in locking the whole chain (there was one such example > for locking all vmas with KVM). IIUC, the intent here is to avoid such > higher-level lock. cgroup_mutex already fulfills the role of the higher-level lock. Paul