[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20120419225704.GE10553@google.com>
Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2012 15:57:04 -0700
From: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To: Glauber Costa <glommer@...allels.com>
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, cgroups@...r.kernel.org,
Li Zefan <lizefan@...wei.com>, kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com,
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, devel@...nvz.org,
Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] don't take cgroup_mutex in destroy()
On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 07:49:17PM -0300, Glauber Costa wrote:
> Most of the destroy functions are only doing very simple things
> like freeing memory.
>
> The ones who goes through lists and such, already use its own
> locking for those.
>
> * The cgroup itself won't go away until we free it, (after destroy)
> * The parent won't go away because we hold a reference count
> * There are no more tasks in the cgroup, and the cgroup is declared
> dead (cgroup_is_removed() == true)
>
> For the blk-cgroup and the cpusets, I got the impression that the mutex
> is still necessary.
>
> For those, I grabbed it from within the destroy function itself.
>
> If the maintainer for those subsystems consider it safe to remove
> it, we can discuss it separately.
I really don't like cgroup_lock() usage spreading more. It's
something which should be contained in cgroup.c proper. I looked at
the existing users a while ago and they seemed to be compensating
deficencies in API, so, if at all possible, let's not spread the
disease.
Thanks.
--
tejun
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists