[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090316084756.GD3449@in.ibm.com>
Date: Mon, 16 Mar 2009 14:17:56 +0530
From: Bharata B Rao <bharata@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Li Zefan <lizf@...fujitsu.com>
Cc: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Balaji Rao <balajirrao@...il.com>,
Dhaval Giani <dhaval@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Balbir Singh <balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Paul Menage <menage@...gle.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
linux-arch@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH -tip] cpuacct: per-cgroup utime/stime statistics -
v2
On Mon, Mar 16, 2009 at 03:13:38PM +0800, Li Zefan wrote:
> >>> +/*
> >>> + * Account the system/user time to the task's accounting group.
> >>> + */
> >>> +static void cpuacct_update_stats(struct task_struct *tsk,
> >>> + enum cpuacct_stat_index idx, cputime_t val)
> >>> +{
> >>> + struct cpuacct *ca;
> >>> +
> >>> + if (unlikely(!cpuacct_subsys.active))
> >>> + return;
> >>> +
> >>> + ca = task_ca(tsk);
> >>> +
> >>> + do {
> >>> + percpu_counter_add(&ca->cpustat[idx], val);
> >>> + ca = ca->parent;
> >>> + } while (ca);
> >>> +}
> >>> +
> >> IIUC, to make sure accessing "ca" to be safe, we need some condition.
> >> (task_lock() or some other.....
> >
> > task_lock() protects tsk->cgroups->subsys[]. So can we hold task_lock()
> > to protect this walk ? But we do this cpuacct hierarchy walk for the
> > current task here. So can a current task's ca or ca's parents disappear
> > from under us ?
> >
>
> task_ca() should be protected by task_lock() or rcu_read_lock(), otherwise
> there is a very small race:
>
> ca = task_ca(tsk)
> move @tsk to another cgroup
> rmdir old_cgrp (thus ca is freed)
> ca->cpustat <--- accessing freed memory
>
> As KAMEZAWA-san said all updates are called under preempt-disabled, and
> classic and tree rcu's rcu_read_lock does preempt disable only, so above
> code is ok, except for rcupreempt.
So I will protect task_ca() and ca hierarchy walk with explicit
rcu_read_lock() to be fully safe.
By the same logic, hierarchy walk in cpuacct_charge() is also
not safe with rcupreempt. It is under preempt disabled section due
to rq->lock. Does cpuacct_charge() also need a fix then ?
Regards,
Bharata.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists