mirror of https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com>
To: Mandeep Singh Baines <msb@chromium.org>
Cc: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>, Li Zefan <lizf@cn.fujitsu.com>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	containers@lists.linux-foundation.org, cgroups@vger.kernel.org,
	KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>,
	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	Paul Menage <paul@paulmenage.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] cgroup: remove tasklist_lock from cgroup_attach_proc
Date: Fri, 23 Dec 2011 03:39:18 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20111223023917.GB28309@somewhere.redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20111223022742.GA28309@somewhere.redhat.com>

On Fri, Dec 23, 2011 at 03:27:45AM +0100, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 22, 2011 at 04:57:51PM -0800, Mandeep Singh Baines wrote:
> > Since cgroup_attach_proc is protected by a threadgroup_lock, we
> > no longer need a tasklist_lock to protect while_each_thread.
> > To keep the complexity of the double-check locking in one place,
> > I also moved the thread_group_leader check up into
> > attach_task_by_pid.
> > 
> > While at it, also converted a couple of returns to gotos.
> > 
> > The suggestion was made here:
> > 
> > https://lkml.org/lkml/2011/12/22/86
> > 
> > Suggested-by: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Mandeep Singh Baines <msb@chromium.org>
> > Cc: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
> > Cc: Li Zefan <lizf@cn.fujitsu.com>
> > Cc: containers@lists.linux-foundation.org
> > Cc: cgroups@vger.kernel.org
> > Cc: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>
> > Cc: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
> > Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
> > Cc: Paul Menage <paul@paulmenage.org>
> > ---
> >  kernel/cgroup.c |   52 +++++++++++++++++++++-------------------------------
> >  1 files changed, 21 insertions(+), 31 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/kernel/cgroup.c b/kernel/cgroup.c
> > index 1042b3c..032139d 100644
> > --- a/kernel/cgroup.c
> > +++ b/kernel/cgroup.c
> > @@ -2102,21 +2102,6 @@ int cgroup_attach_proc(struct cgroup *cgrp, struct task_struct *leader)
> >  	if (retval)
> >  		goto out_free_group_list;
> >  
> > -	/* prevent changes to the threadgroup list while we take a snapshot. */
> > -	read_lock(&tasklist_lock);
> > -	if (!thread_group_leader(leader)) {
> > -		/*
> > -		 * a race with de_thread from another thread's exec() may strip
> > -		 * us of our leadership, making while_each_thread unsafe to use
> > -		 * on this task. if this happens, there is no choice but to
> > -		 * throw this task away and try again (from cgroup_procs_write);
> > -		 * this is "double-double-toil-and-trouble-check locking".
> > -		 */
> > -		read_unlock(&tasklist_lock);
> > -		retval = -EAGAIN;
> > -		goto out_free_group_list;
> > -	}
> > -
> >  	tsk = leader;
> >  	i = 0;
> >  	do {
> > @@ -2145,7 +2130,6 @@ int cgroup_attach_proc(struct cgroup *cgrp, struct task_struct *leader)
> >  	group_size = i;
> >  	tset.tc_array = group;
> >  	tset.tc_array_len = group_size;
> > -	read_unlock(&tasklist_lock);
> 
> You still need rcu_read_lock()/rcu_read_unlock() around
> 	do {
> 
> 	} while_each_thread()
> 
> because threadgroup_lock() doesn't lock the part that remove a thread from
> its group on exit.

Actually while_each_thread() takes care of the thread group list safe
walking. But we need RCU to ensure the task is not released in parallel.
threadgroup_lock() doesn't synchronize against that if the task has
already passed the setting of PF_EXITING.

  reply	other threads:[~2011-12-23  2:39 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2011-12-23  0:57 Mandeep Singh Baines
2011-12-23  0:57 ` [PATCH 2/3] cgroup: remove double-checking locking from attach_task_by_pid Mandeep Singh Baines
2011-12-23  2:13   ` Mandeep Singh Baines
2011-12-23  0:57 ` [PATCH 3/3] cgroup: remove extra calls to find_existing_css_set Mandeep Singh Baines
2011-12-23  2:27 ` [PATCH 1/3] cgroup: remove tasklist_lock from cgroup_attach_proc Frederic Weisbecker
2011-12-23  2:39   ` Frederic Weisbecker [this message]
2011-12-23  2:40   ` Li Zefan
2011-12-23  2:41     ` Frederic Weisbecker

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20111223023917.GB28309@somewhere.redhat.com \
    --to=fweisbec@gmail.com \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=cgroups@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=containers@lists.linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=lizf@cn.fujitsu.com \
    --cc=msb@chromium.org \
    --cc=oleg@redhat.com \
    --cc=paul@paulmenage.org \
    --cc=tj@kernel.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox

Powered by JetHome