Tejun Heo wrote: > 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. > Agreed. I used to do cleanups to remove cgroup_lock()s in subsystems which are really not necessary. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe cgroups" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
