Matt Helsley wrote:
> On Wed, 2006-11-01 at 15:50 -0800, Paul Menage wrote:
>> On 11/1/06, Matt Helsley <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> On Wed, 2006-11-01 at 23:42 +0530, Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote:
>>>> On Wed, Nov 01, 2006 at 12:30:13PM +0300, Pavel Emelianov wrote:
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>>>>> - Support movement of all threads of a process from one group
>>>>>> to another atomically?
>>>>> I propose such a solution: if a user asks to move /proc/<pid>
>>>>> then move the whole task with threads.
>>>>> If user asks to move /proc/<pid>/task/<tid> then move just
>>>>> a single thread.
>>>>>
>>>>> What do you think?
>>>> Isnt /proc/<pid> listed also in /proc/<pid>/task/<tid>?
>>>>
>>>> For ex:
>>>>
>>>> # ls /proc/2906/task
>>>> 2906 2907 2908 2909
>>>>
>>>> 2906 is the main thread which created the remaining threads.
>>>>
>>>> This would lead to an ambiguity when user does something like below:
>>>>
>>>> echo 2906 > /some_res_file_system/some_new_group
>>>>
>>>> Is he intending to move just the main thread, 2906, to the new group or
>>>> all the threads? It could be either.
>>>>
>>>> This needs some more thought ...
>>> I thought the idea was to take in a proc path instead of a single
>>> number. You could then distinguish between the whole thread group and
>>> individual threads by parsing the string. You'd move a single thread if
>>> you find both the tgid and the tid. If you only get a tgid you'd move
>>> the whole thread group. So:
>>>
>>> <pid> -> if it's a thread group leader move the whole
>>> thread group, otherwise just move the thread
>>> /proc/<tgid> -> move the whole thread group
>>> /proc/<tgid>/task/<tid> -> move the thread
>>>
>>>
>>> Alternatives that come to mind are:
>>>
>>> 1. Read a flag with the pid
>>> 2. Use a special file which expects only thread groups as input
>> I think that having a "tasks" file and a "threads" file in each
>> container directory would be a clean way to handle it:
>>
>> "tasks" : read/write complete process members
>> "threads" : read/write individual thread members
>>
>> Paul
>
> Seems like a good idea to me -- that certainly avoids complex parsing.
>
> Cheers,
> -Matt Helsley
>
Yeah, sounds like a good idea. We need to give the controllers some control
over whether they support task movement, thread movement or both.
--
Balbir Singh,
Linux Technology Center,
IBM Software Labs
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
