On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 09:35:26AM -0400, Frederic Weisbecker wrote: > 2012/10/18 Tejun Heo <tj@xxxxxxxxxx>: > > From d935a5d6832a264ce52f4257e176f4f96cbaf048 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 > > From: Tejun Heo <tj@xxxxxxxxxx> > > Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2012 17:40:30 -0700 > > > > This reverts commit 7e3aa30ac8c904a706518b725c451bb486daaae9. > > > > The commit incorrectly assumed that fork path always performed > > threadgroup_change_begin/end() and depended on that for > > synchronization against task exit and cgroup migration paths instead > > of explicitly grabbing task_lock(). > > > > threadgroup_change is not locked when forking a new process (as > > opposed to a new thread in the same process) and even if it were it > > wouldn't be effective as different processes use different threadgroup > > locks. > > > > Revert the incorrect optimization. > > Ok but there is still no good reason to task_lock() there. But the > comment is indeed wrong, how about fixing it instead? I can send you > a patch for that. For -stable, I think it's better to revert. If you want to remove task_lock, let's do it for 3.8. Thanks. -- tejun _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
