[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20121108171742.GJ12973@htj.dyndns.org>
Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2012 09:17:42 -0800
From: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>
Cc: lizefan@...wei.com, rjw@...k.pl,
containers@...ts.linux-foundation.org, cgroups@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
fweisbec@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 8/9] cgroup_freezer: add ->post_create() and
->pre_destroy() and track online state
Hello,
On Thu, Nov 08, 2012 at 02:23:06PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Sat 03-11-12 01:38:34, Tejun Heo wrote:
> > A cgroup is online and visible to iteration between ->post_create()
> > and ->pre_destroy(). This patch introduces CGROUP_FREEZER_ONLINE and
> > toggles it from the newly added freezer_post_create() and
> > freezer_pre_destroy() while holding freezer->lock such that a
> > cgroup_freezer can be reilably distinguished to be online. This will
> > be used by full hierarchy support.
>
> I am thinking whether freezer_pre_destroy is really needed. Once we
> reach pre_destroy then there are no tasks nor any children in the group
> so there is nobody to wake up if the group was frozen and the destroy
> callback is called after synchronize_rcu so the traversing should be
> safe.
Yeah, it might be true, but I'd still like to keep the offlining in
->pre_destroy() so that it's symmetrical w/ ->post_create(). I'll
rename and document the ops so that the roles of each are clearer.
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