[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20170316174114.GG15810@htj.duckdns.org>
Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2017 13:41:14 -0400
From: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, Chris Mason <clm@...com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kernel-team@...com,
Li Zefan <lizefan@...wei.com>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>, cgroups@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] kthread, cgroup: close race window where new
kthreads can be migrated to non-root cgroups
Hello,
On Thu, Mar 16, 2017 at 05:31:59PM +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> Or we can add another "unsigned no_cgroups:1" bit into task_struct,
> not sure.
To synchronize around initialization, a PF flag would be easier as we
can use wait_on_bit().
> Anyway, I do not understand the PF_NO_SETAFFINITY check in
> __cgroup_procs_write(). task_can_attach() checks it too, so cgroups
> can't change the affinity. Imo something explicit like no_cgroups
> makes more sense.
task_can_attach() predates the __cgroup_procs_write() and currently
doesn't do anything. We can split the flag or rename it so that it's
more generic. The reasons for disallowing cgroup migration have a lot
of crosssection with affinity, so it's not a complete misnomer.
Either way is fine by me.
Thanks.
--
tejun
Powered by blists - more mailing lists