On Fri, Jan 17, 2020 at 9:28 AM Tejun Heo <tj@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Fri, Jan 17, 2020 at 04:15:32PM +0100, Michal Koutný wrote: > > PF_EXITING is set earlier than actual removal from css_set when a task > > is exitting. This can confuse cgroup.procs readers who see no PF_EXITING > > tasks, however, rmdir is checking against css_set membership so it can > > transitionally fail with EBUSY. > > > > Fix this by listing tasks that weren't unlinked from css_set active > > lists. > > It may happen that other users of the task iterator (without > > CSS_TASK_ITER_PROCS) spot a PF_EXITING task before cgroup_exit(). This > > is equal to the state before commit c03cd7738a83 ("cgroup: Include dying > > leaders with live threads in PROCS iterations") but it may be reviewed > > later. Tested-by: Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@xxxxxxxxxx> > > Yeah, this looks fine to me. Any chance you can order this before the > clean up so that we can mark it for -stable. > +1 for reordering. Makes it easier to backport. Thanks, Suren. > Thanks. > > -- > tejun > > -- > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to kernel-team+unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxx. >