linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3/6] cgroup: introduce cgroup_taskset and use it in subsys->can_attach(), cancel

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20110826064011.GA2632@htj.dyndns.org>
Date:	Fri, 26 Aug 2011 08:40:11 +0200
From:	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To:	Matt Helsley <matthltc@...ibm.com>
Cc:	rjw@...k.pl, paul@...lmenage.org, lizf@...fujitsu.com,
	linux-pm@...ts.linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	containers@...ts.linux-foundation.org, fweisbec@...il.com,
	kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com,
	Balbir Singh <bsingharora@...il.com>,
	Daisuke Nishimura <nishimura@....nes.nec.co.jp>,
	James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/6] cgroup: introduce cgroup_taskset and use it in
 subsys->can_attach(), cancel_attach() and attach()

Hello, Matt.

On Thu, Aug 25, 2011 at 07:38:18PM -0700, Matt Helsley wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 26, 2011 at 12:43:09AM +0200, Tejun Heo wrote:
> > Currently, there's no way to pass multiple tasks to cgroup_subsys
> > methods necessitating the need for separate per-process and per-task
> > methods.  This patch introduces cgroup_taskset which can be used to
> > pass multiple tasks and their associated cgroups to cgroup_subsys
> > methods.
> 
> This will be the third iterator-ish pattern in the cgroup code.
> It's not your fault but it does seem a bit much to have:
...
> Is there a sane way to merge all this?

If merging isn't complicated and simplifies the code and its users,
definitely but I don't think that will be the case here.  If there are
different targets to iterate, having matching iterators isn't a weird
thing after all.  I personally am not too enthusiastic about mixing
locking with iterator (the implied read_lock in the cgroup iterator)
or iteration-by-callback but that's a different issue.

> Perhaps we could drop the iterator interfaces in 1) and 2) and replace
> it with:
> 
> 		tset cgroup_taskset_from_cgroup(cgroup)
> 
> which would grab the css set lock to construct the tset from the given
> cgroup -- essentially inlining the current iterator code into a single
> function.

* It doesn't need to walk the whole cgroup.

* It requires stable set of tasks (ie. atomicity w.r.t. the thread
  group) with sleepable context which is currently achieved by a rwsem
  in the task to protect against fork and getting an extra reference
  to the tasks in the set.

I don't think widening the scope would achieve much (why do we want to
pass in unrelated tasks to subsystems as a single bundle?) while
introducing unnecessary scalability limitation (moving out a single
process ends up being an operation on the whole cgroup).

I don't see how it would be better but, if you do, please go ahead.
Consolidating stuff is (almost) always a good idea. :)

Thanks.

-- 
tejun
--
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/