Re: [PATCH] task containersv11 add tasks file interface fix for cpusets

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Sat, 6 Oct 2007, Paul Jackson wrote:

> This isn't working for me.
> 
> The key kernel routine for updating a tasks cpus_allowed
> cannot be called while holding a spinlock.
> 
> But the above loop holds a spinlock, css_set_lock, between
> the cgroup_iter_start and the cgroup_iter_end.
> 
> I end up generating complaints of:
> 	BUG: scheduling while atomic
> when I invoke the set_cpus_allowed() above.
> 
> Should css_set_lock be a mutex?  Locking changes like that
> can be risky.
> 

It would probably be better to just save references to the tasks.

	struct cgroup_iter it;
	struct task_struct *p, **tasks;
	int i = 0;

	cgroup_iter_start(cs->css.cgroup, &it);
	while ((p = cgroup_iter_next(cs->css.cgroup, &it))) {
		get_task_struct(p);
		tasks[i++] = p;
	}
	cgroup_iter_end(cs->css.cgroup, &it);

	while (--i >= 0) {
		set_cpus_allowed(tasks[i], cs->cpus_allowed);
		put_task_struct(tasks[i]);
	}

The getting and putting of the tasks will prevent them from exiting or 
being deallocated prematurely.  But this is also a critical section that 
will need to be protected by some mutex so it doesn't race with other 
set_cpus_allowed().

		David
_______________________________________________
Containers mailing list
Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers

[Index of Archives]     [Cgroups]     [Netdev]     [Linux Wireless]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Security]     [Linux for Hams]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite Forum]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux Admin]     [Samba]

  Powered by Linux