From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756549Ab2K3JBD (ORCPT ); Fri, 30 Nov 2012 04:01:03 -0500 Received: from mx2.parallels.com ([64.131.90.16]:59308 "EHLO mx2.parallels.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751235Ab2K3JBC (ORCPT ); Fri, 30 Nov 2012 04:01:02 -0500 Message-ID: <50B875B4.2020507@parallels.com> Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2012 13:00:36 +0400 From: Glauber Costa User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/17.0 Thunderbird/17.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Kamezawa Hiroyuki CC: Tejun Heo , , , , , , , , , , Subject: Re: [PATCHSET cgroup/for-3.8] cpuset: decouple cpuset locking from cgroup core References: <1354138460-19286-1-git-send-email-tj@kernel.org> <50B8263C.7060908@jp.fujitsu.com> In-Reply-To: <50B8263C.7060908@jp.fujitsu.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-2022-JP" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 11/30/2012 07:21 AM, Kamezawa Hiroyuki wrote: > (2012/11/29 6:34), Tejun Heo wrote: >> Hello, guys. >> >> Depending on cgroup core locking - cgroup_mutex - is messy and makes >> cgroup prone to locking dependency problems. The current code already >> has lock dependency loop - memcg nests get_online_cpus() inside >> cgroup_mutex. cpuset the other way around. >> >> Regardless of the locking details, whatever is protecting cgroup has >> inherently to be something outer to most other locking constructs. >> cgroup calls into a lot of major subsystems which in turn have to >> perform subsystem-specific locking. Trying to nest cgroup >> synchronization inside other locks isn't something which can work >> well. >> >> cgroup now has enough API to allow subsystems to implement their own >> locking and cgroup_mutex is scheduled to be made private to cgroup >> core. This patchset makes cpuset implement its own locking instead of >> relying on cgroup_mutex. >> >> cpuset is rather nasty in this respect. Some of it seems to have come >> from the implementation history - cgroup core grew out of cpuset - but >> big part stems from cpuset's need to migrate tasks to an ancestor >> cgroup when an hotunplug event makes a cpuset empty (w/o any cpu or >> memory). >> >> This patchset decouples cpuset locking from cgroup_mutex. After the >> patchset, cpuset uses cpuset-specific cpuset_mutex instead of >> cgroup_mutex. This also removes the lockdep warning triggered during >> cpu offlining (see 0009). >> >> Note that this leaves memcg as the only external user of cgroup_mutex. >> Michal, Kame, can you guys please convert memcg to use its own locking >> too? >> > > Hmm. let me see....at quick glance cgroup_lock() is used at > hierarchy policy change > kmem_limit > migration policy change > swapiness change > oom control > > Because all aboves takes care of changes in hierarchy, > Having a new memcg's mutex in ->create() may be a way. > > Ah, hm, Costa is mentioning task-attach. is the task-attach problem in memcg ? > We disallow the kmem limit to be set if a task already exists in the cgroup. So we can't allow a new task to attach if we are setting the limit.