2012/10/19 Tejun Heo <tj@xxxxxxxxxx>: > On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 09:35:26AM -0400, Frederic Weisbecker wrote: >> 2012/10/18 Tejun Heo <tj@xxxxxxxxxx>: >> > From d935a5d6832a264ce52f4257e176f4f96cbaf048 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 >> > From: Tejun Heo <tj@xxxxxxxxxx> >> > Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2012 17:40:30 -0700 >> > >> > This reverts commit 7e3aa30ac8c904a706518b725c451bb486daaae9. >> > >> > The commit incorrectly assumed that fork path always performed >> > threadgroup_change_begin/end() and depended on that for >> > synchronization against task exit and cgroup migration paths instead >> > of explicitly grabbing task_lock(). >> > >> > threadgroup_change is not locked when forking a new process (as >> > opposed to a new thread in the same process) and even if it were it >> > wouldn't be effective as different processes use different threadgroup >> > locks. >> > >> > Revert the incorrect optimization. >> >> Ok but there is still no good reason to task_lock() there. But the >> comment is indeed wrong, how about fixing it instead? I can send you >> a patch for that. > > For -stable, I think it's better to revert. If you want to remove > task_lock, let's do it for 3.8. I don't think that a wrong comment justifies a patch to stable. -- 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
