[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190214162612.GC19102@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2019 17:26:13 +0100
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: Roman Gushchin <guro@...com>
Cc: Roman Gushchin <guroan@...il.com>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
Kernel Team <Kernel-team@...com>,
"cgroups@...r.kernel.org" <cgroups@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 4/7] cgroup: cgroup v2 freezer
On 02/11, Roman Gushchin wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jan 30, 2019 at 05:52:01PM +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> >
> > Worse, this looks just wrong. In the latter case, cgroup becomes CGRP_FROZEN
> > right after a 2nd task migrates to this cgroup, before this new task calls
> > do_freezer_trap() or cgroup_enter_stopped().
>
> You're right. So, it looks like the problem is in the equation
> nr_tasks_frozen + nr_tasks_stopped == nr_tasks_to_freeze ,
> because a task can be frozen and stopped simultaneously.
>
> So, basically it has to be
> nr_tasks_frozen + nr_tasks_stopped >= nr_tasks_to_freeze instead.
It seems you didn't read the paragraph above, or I missed something...
How can "frozen + stopped >= to_freeze" fix the problem with the falsely true
CGRP_FROZEN ?
Oleg.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists