(2012/07/19 22:48), Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote:
Michal Hocko <mhocko@xxxxxxx> writes:
On Thu 19-07-12 17:51:05, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote:
Michal Hocko <mhocko@xxxxxxx> writes:
From 621ed1c9dab63bd82205bd5266eb9974f86a0a3f Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@xxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2012 13:23:23 +0200
Subject: [PATCH] cgroup: keep cgroup_mutex locked for pre_destroy
3fa59dfb (cgroup: fix potential deadlock in pre_destroy) dropped the
cgroup_mutex lock while calling pre_destroy callbacks because memory
controller could deadlock because force_empty triggered reclaim.
Since "memcg: move charges to root cgroup if use_hierarchy=0" there is
no reclaim going on from mem_cgroup_force_empty though so we can safely
keep the cgroup_mutex locked. This has an advantage that no tasks might
be added during pre_destroy callback and so the handlers don't have to
consider races when new tasks add new charges. This simplifies the
implementation.
---
kernel/cgroup.c | 2 --
1 file changed, 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/kernel/cgroup.c b/kernel/cgroup.c
index 0f3527d..9dba05d 100644
--- a/kernel/cgroup.c
+++ b/kernel/cgroup.c
@@ -4181,7 +4181,6 @@ again:
mutex_unlock(&cgroup_mutex);
return -EBUSY;
}
- mutex_unlock(&cgroup_mutex);
/*
* In general, subsystem has no css->refcnt after pre_destroy(). But
@@ -4204,7 +4203,6 @@ again:
return ret;
}
- mutex_lock(&cgroup_mutex);
parent = cgrp->parent;
if (atomic_read(&cgrp->count) || !list_empty(&cgrp->children)) {
clear_bit(CGRP_WAIT_ON_RMDIR, &cgrp->flags);
mem_cgroup_force_empty still calls
lru_add_drain_all
->schedule_on_each_cpu
-> get_online_cpus
->mutex_lock(&cpu_hotplug.lock);
So wont we deadlock ?
Yes you are right. I got it wrong. I thought that the reclaim is the
main problem. It won't be that easy then and the origin mm patch
(hugetlb-cgroup-simplify-pre_destroy-callback.patch) still needs a fix
or to be dropped.
Aha, then the problematic schedule_on_each_cpu(), Andrew pointed out in this month,
is in front of us :( ...and drain_all_stock_sync() should be fixed too.
Hmm...
We just need to remove the VM_BUG_ON() right ? The rest of the patch is
good right ? Otherwise how about the below
I'm personally okay but....ugly ?
Thanks,
-Kame
NOTE: Do we want to do s/mutex_[un]lock(&cgroup_mutex)/cgroup_[un]lock()/ ?
diff --git a/kernel/cgroup.c b/kernel/cgroup.c
index 7981850..01c67f4 100644
--- a/kernel/cgroup.c
+++ b/kernel/cgroup.c
@@ -4151,7 +4151,6 @@ again:
mutex_unlock(&cgroup_mutex);
return -EBUSY;
}
- mutex_unlock(&cgroup_mutex);
/*
* In general, subsystem has no css->refcnt after pre_destroy(). But
@@ -4171,10 +4170,10 @@ again:
ret = cgroup_call_pre_destroy(cgrp);
if (ret) {
clear_bit(CGRP_WAIT_ON_RMDIR, &cgrp->flags);
+ mutex_unlock(&cgroup_mutex);
return ret;
}
- mutex_lock(&cgroup_mutex);
parent = cgrp->parent;
if (atomic_read(&cgrp->count) || !list_empty(&cgrp->children)) {
clear_bit(CGRP_WAIT_ON_RMDIR, &cgrp->flags);
diff --git a/mm/memcontrol.c b/mm/memcontrol.c
index e8ddc00..91c96df 100644
--- a/mm/memcontrol.c
+++ b/mm/memcontrol.c
@@ -4993,9 +4993,18 @@ free_out:
static int mem_cgroup_pre_destroy(struct cgroup *cont)
{
+ int ret;
struct mem_cgroup *memcg = mem_cgroup_from_cont(cont);
- return mem_cgroup_force_empty(memcg, false);
+ cgroup_unlock();
+ /*
+ * we call lru_add_drain_all, which end up taking
+ * mutex_lock(&cpu_hotplug.lock), But cpuset have
+ * the reverse order. So drop the cgroup lock
+ */
+ ret = mem_cgroup_force_empty(memcg, false);
+ cgroup_unlock();
+ return ret;
}
static void mem_cgroup_destroy(struct cgroup *cont)
--
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
