[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20121026175258.GV11442@htj.dyndns.org>
Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2012 10:52:58 -0700
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 v2 1/1] freezer: change ptrace_stop/do_signal_stop to use
freezable_schedule()
On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 07:46:06PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> try_to_freeze_tasks() and cgroup_freezer rely on scheduler locks
> to ensure that a task doing STOPPED/TRACED -> RUNNING transition
> can't escape freezing. This mostly works, but ptrace_stop() does
> not necessarily call schedule(), it can change task->state back to
> RUNNING and check freezing() without any lock/barrier in between.
>
> We could add the necessary barrier, but this patch changes
> ptrace_stop() and do_signal_stop() to use freezable_schedule().
> This fixes the race, freezer_count() and freezer_should_skip()
> carefully avoid the race.
>
> And this simplifies the code, try_to_freeze_tasks/update_if_frozen
> no longer need to use task_is_stopped_or_traced() checks with the
> non trivial assumptions. We can rely on the mechanism which was
> specially designed to mark the sleeping task as "frozen enough".
>
> v2: As Tejun pointed out, we can also change get_signal_to_deliver()
> and move try_to_freeze() up before 'relock' label.
>
> Signed-off-by: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Looks good to me. :)
Acked-by: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Rafael, sorry that this one doesn't have pm cc'd but can you please
pick up this one too?
Thanks a lot.
--
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