[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20120229162148.GA8375@somewhere.redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 29 Feb 2012 17:21:52 +0100
From: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
To: Mandeep Singh Baines <msb@...omium.org>
Cc: Li Zefan <lizf@...fujitsu.com>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH v2] cgroups: Run subsystem fork callback from
cgroup_post_fork()
On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 07:55:00AM -0800, Mandeep Singh Baines wrote:
> Frederic Weisbecker (fweisbec@...il.com) wrote:
> > When a user freezes a cgroup, the freezer sets the subsystem state
> > to CGROUP_FREEZING and then iterates over the tasks in the cgroup links.
> >
> > But there is a possible race here, although unlikely, if a task
> > forks and the parent is preempted between write_unlock(tasklist_lock)
> > and cgroup_post_fork(). If we freeze the cgroup while the parent
>
> So what if you moved cgroup_post_forks() a few lines up to be
> inside the tasklist_lock?
It won't work. Consider this scenario:
CPU 0 CPU 1
cgroup_fork_callbacks()
write_lock(tasklist_lock)
try_to_freeze_cgroup() { add child to task list etc...
cgroup_iter_start()
freeze tasks
cgroup_iter_end()
} cgroup_post_fork()
write_unlock(tasklist_lock)
If this is not the first time we call cgroup_iter_start(), we won't go
through the whole tasklist, we simply iterate through the css set task links.
Plus we try to avoid anything under tasklist_lock when possible.
>
> I agree with you on the race and believe your solution is correct.
>
> > is sleeping and the parent wakes up thereafter, its child will
> > be missing from the set of tasks to freeze because:
> >
> > - The child was not yet linked to its css_set->tasks, as is done
> > from cgroup_post_fork(). cgroup_iter_start() has thus missed it.
> >
> > - The cgroup freezer's fork callback can handle that child but
> > cgroup_fork_callbacks() has been called already.
> >
> > One way to fix this is to call the fork callbacks after we link
> > the task to the css set. The cgroup freezer is the only user of
> > this callback anyway.
> >
> > v2: Keep the call to cgroup_exit to put the css_set on fork error.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
> > Cc: Li Zefan <lizf@...fujitsu.com>
> > Cc: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
> > Cc: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
> > Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
> > Cc: Mandeep Singh Baines <msb@...omium.org>
> > ---
> >
> > Not sure this is the right solution, especially as I still need
> > a cancellable fork callback for my task counter and for this I
> > need the fork callbacks to be called before the task is added
> > on the tasklist. But anyway at least that reports this race.
> >
>
> I'm new to the task counter stuff. Would you mind providing a
> reference.
Sure, have a look at this:
https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/1/31/489
Especially this patch:
https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/1/31/495
And this one that implements a fork callback:
https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/1/31/497
The fork callback may return an error to cancel the fork. But doing
this at cgroup_post_fork() time is too late.
--
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