[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20121024190458.GB12182@atj.dyndns.org>
Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2012 15:04:58 -0400
From: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Cc: rjw@...k.pl, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, lizefan@...wei.com,
containers@...ts.linux-foundation.org, cgroups@...r.kernel.org,
stable@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/7] cgroup: cgroup_subsys->fork() should be called after
the task is added to css_set
Hello,
On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 05:51:28PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> Yes, yes. But in this case (I mean, for uprobes) "threadgroup" in the name
> is misleading. It should be called unconditially without any argument.
>
> Please see
>
> [PATCH 1/2] brw_mutex: big read-write mutex
> http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=135032816223715
Ooh... that's something completely different.
> [PATCH 2/2] uprobes: Use brw_mutex to fix register/unregister vs dup_mmap() race
> http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=135032817823720
>
> for details, but in short 2/2 needs this giant lock to block dup_mmap()
> system-wide, while cgroup (currently) only needs threadgroup lock if
> CLONE_THREAD (ignoring do_exit) and per-task.
>
> So please forget, I no longer think it makes sense to use the same
> thing for uprobes and cgroups.
It is quite tempting to reduce hot path overhead and penalize cgroup
migration ops more tho. Write-locking brw_mutex on migration might
not be too bad. Why did you change your mind?
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