[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20111221181101.GA3092@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2011 19:11:01 +0100
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
Cc: Li Zefan <lizf@...fujitsu.com>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Mandeep Singh Baines <msb@...omium.org>,
Containers <containers@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
Cgroups <cgroups@...r.kernel.org>,
KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>,
Paul Menage <paul@...lmenage.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: Q: cgroup: Questions about possible issues in cgroup locking
On 12/21, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
>
> On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 02:08:48PM +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > On 12/21, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> > > - By the time we call cgroup_post_fork(), it is ready to be woken up
> > > and usable by the scheduler.
> >
> > No, the new child can't run until do_fork()->wake_up_new_task().
>
> Out of curiosity, why is it not possible for a task to kill and wake up the child
> before that happens?
Because it is not possible to wake it up.
Please note that copy_process() creates the "deactivated" child, iow
it is not on rq.
But, at the same time its ->state == TASK_RUNNING. This "fools"
try_to_wake_up() or anything else which in theory could place it
on the runqueue.
Except, of course, wake_up_new_task() does activate_task(). And
note that it does this unconditionally, exactly because we know that
this task can't be woken.
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