[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20110902170844.GJ2752@htj.dyndns.org>
Date: Sat, 3 Sep 2011 02:08:44 +0900
From: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Cc: Matt Helsley <matthltc@...ibm.com>,
"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()
Hello,
On Fri, Sep 02, 2011 at 06:58:39PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > 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" ;)
I guess it depends on the viewpoint. A simple analogy would be using
WARN_ON_ONCE() instead of BUG_ON() so that the mode of failure is
softer. This change isn't likely to make bugs significantly more
difficult to discover so why not?
> 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...
Can you please wait a bit? The second one was broken (missing unlock)
and I made some small adjustments. Will repost soon.
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists