Hi Oleg, Thanks for the review. On Thu, 2018-11-29 at 13:34 +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote: > To me it would be more clean to call walk_process_tree(kill_descendant_visitor) > unconditionally in find_new_reaper() right before "if (has_child_subreaper)", but > then we will need to shift read_lock(tasklist) from walk_process_tree(). Yes, that's the reason why I added the call before the tasklist lock. Let me know if you want me to move the read lock from walk_process_tree() to PR_SET_CHILD_SUBREAPER (the only caller) instead. > So I think the patch is mostly fine, the only problem I can see is that > PR_SET_KILL_DESCENDANTS_ON_EXIT can race with PR_SET_CHILD_SUBREAPER, they both > need to update the bits in the same word. Good point. I'll make it a regular bool instead of a bitfield for v2, unless you have another approach in mind to fix this. Jürg
