[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20111221190817.GI17668@somewhere>
Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2011 20:08:20 +0100
From: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
To: Mandeep Singh Baines <msb@...omium.org>
Cc: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>, Li Zefan <lizf@...fujitsu.com>,
Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.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 Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 11:01:02AM -0800, Mandeep Singh Baines wrote:
> Frederic Weisbecker (fweisbec@...il.com) wrote:
> > On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 02:08:48PM +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > > On 12/21, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > Starring at some parts of cgroups, I have a few questions:
> > > >
> > > > - Is cgroup_enable_task_cg_list()'s while_each_thread() safe
> > > > against concurrent exec()? The leader may change in de_thread()
> > > > and invalidate the test done in while_each_thread().
> > >
> > > Yes. Oh, we need to do something with while_each_thread.
> >
> > Would something like this work?
> >
> > diff --git a/include/linux/sched.h b/include/linux/sched.h
> > index c0c5876..e002a00 100644
> > --- a/include/linux/sched.h
> > +++ b/include/linux/sched.h
> > @@ -2293,8 +2293,12 @@ extern bool current_is_single_threaded(void);
> > #define do_each_thread(g, t) \
> > for (g = t = &init_task ; (g = t = next_task(g)) != &init_task ; ) do
> >
> > -#define while_each_thread(g, t) \
> > - while ((t = next_thread(t)) != g)
> > +#define while_each_thread(g, t) \
> > + while (({ \
> > + struct task_struct *__prev = t; \
> > + t = next_thread(t); \
> > + t != __prev && t != g; \
>
> Hi,
>
> Don't you still have an (highly unlikely) race if you exec
> and then pthread_create()?
I'm not sure what you mean.
>
> Instead of:
>
> t != __prev && t != g;
>
> How about:
>
> t != t->group_leader;
That might work too but we need a pair of memory barriers.
--
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