[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20110902165839.GA7478@redhat.com>
Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2011 18:58:39 +0200
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: Matt Helsley <matthltc@...ibm.com>
Cc: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>,
Paul Menage <paul@...lmenage.org>,
containers@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
linux-pm@...ts.linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH pm-freezer 1/4] cgroup_freezer: fix freezer->state
setting bug in freezer_change_state()
On 09/01, Matt Helsley wrote:
>
> On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 12:21:07PM +0200, Tejun Heo wrote:
> > case CGROUP_FROZEN:
> > - atomic_inc(&system_freezing_cnt);
> > - retval = try_to_freeze_cgroup(cgroup, freezer);
> > + if (freezer->state == CGROUP_THAWED) {
> > + freezer->state = CGROUP_FREEZING;
> > + atomic_inc(&system_freezing_cnt);
> > + retval = try_to_freeze_cgroup(cgroup, freezer);
>
> This still doesn't look quite right. If the cgroup is FREEZING it should
> also call try_to_freeze_cgroup(). I think this is what's needed:
>
> if (freezer->state == CGROUP_THAWED)
> atomic_inc(&system_freezing_cnt);
> freezer->state = CGROUP_FREEZING;
> retval = try_to_freeze_cgroup(cgroup, freezer);
This is what I mentioned before, to me this looks like a win.
Why do we need try_to_freeze_cgroup() in this case? "for safety"
could actually mean "hide the bug" ;)
But I agree either way. Rafael, I think 1-4 are fine, but I think
we need the simple 5/4, will send in a minute...
Oleg.
--
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