On Mon, Jan 24, 2011 at 12:38:06AM -0800, Paul Menage wrote:
> Hi Ben,
>
> Finally finding a moment to actually look at these patches. Sorry it's
> been a while. Can you send the patches inline rather than as
> attachments in future?
Whoops, sure thing.
>
> Reviewed-by: Paul Menage <menage@xxxxxxxxxx>
>
> This patch looks fine, although I think that freezer_can_attach_task()
> could be simplified to:
>
> static int freezer_can_attach_task(struct cgroup *cgrp, struct task_struct *tsk)
> {
> if (__cgroup_freezing_or_frozen(tsk))
> return -EBUSY;
> return 0;
> }
>
> since we guarantee that rcu_read_lock() is held across this call.
I put a note there that "rcu_read_lock allows recursive locking", to
denote that it's okay to double-lock when it's called from
cgroup_attach_proc. I guess this isn't very clear: the reason the lock
is there is because in cgroup_attach_task, I call it without
rcu_read_lock (not necessary in most cases), but freezer needs RCU there
in either case. I wrote in the documentation: "This may run in
rcu_read-side", which I guess isn't very clear either.
>
> There appears to be a tiny bit of rot in kernel/cpu.c (due to the
> addition of the exit() callback) and memcontrol.c (due to some changes
> at the start of mem_cgroup_move_task()) but neither impact actual
> code.
>
> I think that before actually pushing to mainline, we'll need to sort
> out the cpuset mempolicy yielding issue, since that could be a
> user-visible API change.
>
>
> Paul
Hmm. The quirks caused by this are specific to using cgroup.procs, and
since cgroup.procs is new, I wouldn't say this is an API "change"?
Thanks,
Ben
_______________________________________________
Containers mailing list
Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
