[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20111123143444.GA14549@somewhere.redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2011 15:34:53 +0100
From: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
To: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Cc: paul@...lmenage.org, rjw@...k.pl, lizf@...fujitsu.com,
linux-pm@...ts.linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
containers@...ts.linux-foundation.org, matthltc@...ibm.com,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, oleg@...hat.com,
kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 03/10] threadgroup: extend threadgroup_lock() to cover
exit and exec
On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 02:03:26PM -0800, Tejun Heo wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 14, 2011 at 02:54:08PM +0100, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> > > Also note this is currently protected by the tasklist readlock. Cred guard mutex is
> > > certainly better, I just don't remember if you remove the tasklist lock in a
> > > further patch.
> >
> > Ah recalling what Ben Blum said, we also need the leader to stay stable because it
> > is excpected to be passed in ->can_attach(), ->attach(), ->cancel_attach(), ...
> > Although that's going to change after your patches that pass a flex array.
>
> Not really without locking out exec. The thing is whoever is exec'ing
> will be the leader and we can't guarantee that the first in the flex
> array is always the leader. One method may see it as the leader, the
> next one might not.
Exactly!
--
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