[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <6599ad830908220628o7dc99cf1i5908d3e95deb31e5@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 2009 06:28:04 -0700
From: Paul Menage <menage@...gle.com>
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Cc: akpm@...ux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
bblum@...gle.com, ebiederm@...ssion.com, lizf@...fujitsu.com,
matthltc@...ibm.com
Subject: Re: + cgroups-add-functionality-to-read-write-lock-clone_thread-forking-pe
r-threadgroup.patch added to -mm tree
On Sat, Aug 22, 2009 at 6:09 AM, Oleg Nesterov<oleg@...hat.com> wrote:
>
>
> And why do we need sighand->threadgroup_fork_lock ? I gueess, to protect
> against clone(CLONE_THREAD).
Right - we want to be able to atomically move all the threads in the
thread group into a new cgroup, without leaving any behind if we
happen to race with a clone(CLONE_THREAD).
Putting the lock in the sighand structure seemed like an appropriate
place since it's involved in existing clone() synchronization.
>
> threadgroup_fork_lock() bumps P->sighand->count. If P exec, it will
> notice sighand->count != 1 and switch to another ->sighand.
So maybe we should also down_read(threadgroup_fork_lock) in the exec
path? That would prevent a child thread from execing and taking over
the group leadership, so it would remain safe to iterate over the
group leader's thread list.
Paul
--
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