[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CANaxB-ykQpeaAhb7zgV1fcME8fGs0To05uU8Aa+M79e7yk46TQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2011 18:43:37 +0300
From: Andrew Wagin <avagin@...il.com>
To: Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@...il.com>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Li Zefan <lizf@...fujitsu.com>,
Matt Helsley <matthltc@...ibm.com>,
Pavel Emelyanov <xemul@...allels.com>,
Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC] cgroups: freezer -- Allow to attach a task to a frozen cgroup
>
>> > >
>> > > It's strange. A rollback can't fail. We have three situations:
>> > >
>> > > frozen -> frozen
>> > > thawed -> frozen
>> > > frozen -> thawed
>> > >
>> > > In first and second cases cancel_request can't fail.
>> > > In the third we have a problem, which may be solved if we will call
>> > > thaw_process(task) from attach_task(), we can do that, because
>> > > thaw_process() can't fail. It solves a problem, because
>> > > freezer_cancel_attach will be executed for the first and second cases
>> > > only.
>> > >
>> > > If my suggestion is correct, we can replace pr_warning on BUG_ON
>> > >
>> >
>> > Yes, the case which can fail is
>> >
>> > frozen->(can_attach_task)->thawed
>> > (cgroup_task_migrate failure)
>> > thawed->(cancel_attach)->frozen
>> >
>> > and we should never fail here since otherwise we would not have
>> > a "frozen" state before. But I think placing BUG_ON is too severe
>> > here, maybe WARN_ON_ONCE(1) would fit better?
>>
>> It's true, if a task is not being executed between thaw_process() and
>> freeze_task().
>
> Hmm... But what the problem it might be if a task get executed between
> those stages even for some time?
It may become unfreezable...
>
--
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