[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200117172806.GK2677547@devbig004.ftw2.facebook.com>
Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2020 09:28:06 -0800
From: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To: Michal Koutný <mkoutny@...e.com>
Cc: cgroups@...r.kernel.org, Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
Li Zefan <lizefan@...wei.com>, alex.shi@...ux.alibaba.com,
guro@...com, kernel-team@...roid.com, linger.lee@...iatek.com,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org,
linux-mediatek@...ts.infradead.org, matthias.bgg@...il.com,
shuah@...nel.org, tomcherry@...gle.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] cgroup: Iterate tasks that did not finish do_exit()
On Fri, Jan 17, 2020 at 04:15:32PM +0100, Michal Koutný wrote:
> PF_EXITING is set earlier than actual removal from css_set when a task
> is exitting. This can confuse cgroup.procs readers who see no PF_EXITING
> tasks, however, rmdir is checking against css_set membership so it can
> transitionally fail with EBUSY.
>
> Fix this by listing tasks that weren't unlinked from css_set active
> lists.
> It may happen that other users of the task iterator (without
> CSS_TASK_ITER_PROCS) spot a PF_EXITING task before cgroup_exit(). This
> is equal to the state before commit c03cd7738a83 ("cgroup: Include dying
> leaders with live threads in PROCS iterations") but it may be reviewed
> later.
Yeah, this looks fine to me. Any chance you can order this before the
clean up so that we can mark it for -stable.
Thanks.
--
tejun
Powered by blists - more mailing lists