Oleg Nesterov wrote:
On 08/09, Pavel Emelyanov wrote:
Paul E. McKenney wrote:
On Wed, Aug 08, 2007 at 08:41:07PM +0400, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
+void switch_task_namespaces(struct task_struct *p, struct nsproxy *new)
+{
+ struct nsproxy *ns;
+
+ might_sleep();
+
+ ns = p->nsproxy;
+ if (ns == new)
+ return;
+
+ if (new)
+ get_nsproxy(new);
+ rcu_assign_pointer(p->nsproxy, new);
+
+ if (ns && atomic_dec_and_test(&ns->count)) {
+ /*
+ * wait for others to get what they want from this
+ * nsproxy. cannot release this nsproxy via the
+ * call_rcu() since put_mnt_ns will want to sleep
+ */
+ synchronize_rcu();
+ free_nsproxy(ns);
+ }
+}
(I may be wrong, Paul cc'ed)
This is correct with the current implementation of RCU, but strictly
speaking,
we can't use synchronize_rcu() here, because write_lock_irq() doesn't
imply
rcu_read_lock() in theory.
Can you use synchronize_sched() instead? The synchronize_sched()
#define synchronize_sched() synchronize_rcu()
they are the same? what's the point?
There are the same with the current implementation. RT kernel for example,
has another, when preempt_disable() doesn't imply rcu_read_lock().
Ok, thanks.
primitive will wait until all preempt/irq-disable code sequences complete.
Therefore, it would wait for all write_lock_irq() code sequences to
complete.
But we don't need this. Iff we get the nsproxy under rcu_read_lock() all
we need is to wait for RCU sections to complete.
Yes. But this patch complicates the code and slows down group_exit. We don't
Nope - it slows done the code only if the task exiting is the last
one using the nsproxy. In other words - we slowdown the virtual server
stop, not task exit. This is OK.
access non-current ->nsproxy so often afaics, and task_lock is cheap.
Note also that switch_task_namespaces() might_sleep(), but sys_unshare()
calls it under task_lock().
I've moved this lower :)
Oleg.
_______________________________________________
Containers mailing list
Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
