[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20121020223709.GA5626@htj.dyndns.org>
Date: Sat, 20 Oct 2012 15:37:09 -0700
From: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
Cc: Li Zefan <lizefan@...wei.com>,
containers@...ts.linux-foundation.org, cgroups@...r.kernel.org,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH cgroup/for-3.7-fixes 1/2] Revert "cgroup: Remove
task_lock() from cgroup_post_fork()"
Hello, Frederic.
On Sat, Oct 20, 2012 at 02:21:43PM -0400, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> CPU 0
> CPU 1
>
> cgroup_task_migrate {
> task_lock(p)
> rcu_assign_pointer(tsk->cgroups, newcg);
> task_unlock(tsk);
>
> write_lock(&css_set_lock);
> if (!list_empty(&tsk->cg_list))
> list_move(&tsk->cg_list, &newcg->tasks);
> write_unlock(&css_set_lock);
>
> write_lock(&css_set_lock);
> put_css_set(oldcg);
> list_add(&child->cg_list, &child->cgroups->tasks); (1)
Man, that's confusing. :)
> On (1), child->cgroups should have the value of newcg and not oldcg
> due to the memory ordering implied by the locking of css_set_lock. Now
> I can't guarantee that because I'm no memory ordering expert. And even
> if it's safe, it's so very non obvious that I now agree with you:
> let's revert the patch and restart with a better base by gathering
> all the cgroup fork code in the current cgroup_post_fork place.
Aye aye, let's move everything to cgroup_post_fork() and then we don't
have to worry about grabbing task_lock multiple times.
Thanks.
--
tejun
--
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