On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 07:11:01PM +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote: > On 12/21, Frederic Weisbecker wrote: > > > > On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 02:08:48PM +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote: > > > On 12/21, Frederic Weisbecker wrote: > > > > - By the time we call cgroup_post_fork(), it is ready to be woken up > > > > and usable by the scheduler. > > > > > > No, the new child can't run until do_fork()->wake_up_new_task(). > > > > Out of curiosity, why is it not possible for a task to kill and wake up the child > > before that happens? > > Because it is not possible to wake it up. > > Please note that copy_process() creates the "deactivated" child, iow > it is not on rq. > > But, at the same time its ->state == TASK_RUNNING. This "fools" > try_to_wake_up() or anything else which in theory could place it > on the runqueue. Aaah I see. > > Except, of course, wake_up_new_task() does activate_task(). And > note that it does this unconditionally, exactly because we know that > this task can't be woken. > ok, thanks for the explanation! _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
