[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <50912AC1.508@parallels.com>
Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2012 17:42:25 +0400
From: Glauber Costa <glommer@...allels.com>
To: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
CC: <lizefan@...wei.com>, <hannes@...xchg.org>, <mhocko@...e.cz>,
<bsingharora@...il.com>, <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>,
<cgroups@...r.kernel.org>, <containers@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/8] cgroup: deactivate CSS's and mark cgroup dead before
invoking ->pre_destroy()
On 10/31/2012 08:22 AM, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Because ->pre_destroy() could fail and can't be called under
> cgroup_mutex, cgroup destruction did something very ugly.
>
> 1. Grab cgroup_mutex and verify it can be destroyed; fail otherwise.
>
> 2. Release cgroup_mutex and call ->pre_destroy().
>
> 3. Re-grab cgroup_mutex and verify it can still be destroyed; fail
> otherwise.
>
> 4. Continue destroying.
>
> In addition to being ugly, it has been always broken in various ways.
> For example, memcg ->pre_destroy() expects the cgroup to be inactive
> after it's done but tasks can be attached and detached between #2 and
> #3 and the conditions that memcg verified in ->pre_destroy() might no
> longer hold by the time control reaches #3.
>
> Now that ->pre_destroy() is no longer allowed to fail. We can switch
> to the following.
>
> 1. Grab cgroup_mutex and fail if it can't be destroyed; fail
> otherwise.
>
fail, or fail otherwise? Seems quite negative =)
--
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