Hello, On Tue, Nov 20, 2018 at 05:39:03PM +0000, Roman Gushchin wrote: > Yeah, it's a good point. I've thought about it mostly in the fork() context, > where if freezing of a cgroup races with fork(), it makes no sense to > switch the cgroup state back and forth. But that case is different, as > the child will be trapped just on the return path from fork() call. I think it'd be best to tie the task counter transitions to cgroup state update and propagation so that the state is always reflective of the task states. Thanks. -- tejun
