> On Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 11:42:55PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > On Mon, 2010-03-29 at 14:34 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > > > > And it appears that my patch is at best insufficient: > > > http://paste.ubuntu.com/406189/ > > > > > > Left to myself, I would wrap copy_process() with rcu_read_lock(), > > > but I would rather hear your thoughts before doing too much more > > > semi-random hacking. ;-) > > > > Well, I don't think you can get away with that, copy_process() wants to > > sleep on quite a few places ;-) Also, locks should be taken at the > > smallest possible scope, unless we want to go back to BKL style > > locking :-) > > No argument here! ;-) > > > As to that freezer splat, you'd have to chase down the cgroup folks, I'm > > fully ignorant on that. > > K, adding them to CC. The two splats are: > > http://pastebin.ubuntu.com/406131/ > http://paste.ubuntu.com/406189/ Please feel free to Cc me on cgroup freezer stuff. There's a comment in the code explaining why it's not used in freezer_fork(): /* * No lock is needed, since the task isn't on tasklist yet, * so it can't be moved to another cgroup, which means the * freezer won't be removed and will be valid during this * function call. */ freezer = task_freezer(task); Cheers, -Matt Helsley _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
