On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 10:16:22AM +0800, Li Zefan wrote:
> Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> > We don't need to hold the parent task_lock() on the
> > parent in cgroup_fork() because we are already synchronized
> > against the two places that may change the parent css_set
> > concurrently:
> >
> > - cgroup_exit(), but the parent obviously can't exit concurrently
> > - cgroup migration: we are synchronized against threadgroup_lock()
> >
> > So we can safely remove the task_lock() there.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@xxxxxxxxx>
> > Cc: Tejun Heo <tj@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > Cc: Li Zefan <lizf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Cc: Containers <containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Cc: Cgroups <cgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Cc: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Cc: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Cc: Paul Menage <paul@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Cc: Mandeep Singh Baines <msb@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > kernel/cgroup.c | 10 +++++++---
> > 1 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/kernel/cgroup.c b/kernel/cgroup.c
> > index 24f6d6f..1999f60 100644
> > --- a/kernel/cgroup.c
> > +++ b/kernel/cgroup.c
> > @@ -4556,7 +4556,7 @@ static const struct file_operations proc_cgroupstats_operations = {
> > *
> > * A pointer to the shared css_set was automatically copied in
> > * fork.c by dup_task_struct(). However, we ignore that copy, since
> > - * it was not made under the protection of RCU or cgroup_mutex, so
> > + * it was not made under the protection of threadgroup_change_begin(), so
>
> I think the original comment still stands, but now threadgroup_change_begin()
> can also protect the cgroup pointer from becoming invalid.
Right but I'm not sure it's worth quoting RCU and cgroup_mutex. The reason
why we use threadgroup_change_begin() is not only to ensure the pointer
validity but also to synchronize the whole cgroup proc logic. This way
when we attach a whole proc with cgroup_attach_proc(), we are sure that
no thread forked too soon or too late such that it wouldn't be migrated with
the rest.
RCU or cgroup_mutex on dup_task_struct() (+ a get_css_set()) would have
protected the pointer validity but not the whole above described machinery.
So I don't think it's even worth quoting those solutions. But if you prefer
I can keep the old comment.
OTOH what I think is missing in the comment is that explanation on the synchronization
against entire proc migration. I can edit that.
>
> > * might no longer be a valid cgroup pointer. cgroup_attach_task() might
> > * have already changed current->cgroups, allowing the previously
> > * referenced cgroup group to be removed and freed.
> > @@ -4566,10 +4566,14 @@ static const struct file_operations proc_cgroupstats_operations = {
> > */
> > void cgroup_fork(struct task_struct *child)
> > {
> > - task_lock(current);
> > + /*
> > + * We don't need to task_lock() current because current->cgroups
> > + * can't be changed concurrently here. The parent obviously hasn't
> > + * exited and called cgroup_exit(), and we are synchronized against
> > + * cgroup migration through threadgroup_change_begin().
> > + */
> > child->cgroups = current->cgroups;
> > get_css_set(child->cgroups);
> > - task_unlock(current);
> > INIT_LIST_HEAD(&child->cg_list);
> > }
> >
_______________________________________________
Containers mailing list
Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
