Hello, Frederic.
On Sat, Oct 20, 2012 at 02:21:43PM -0400, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> CPU 0
> CPU 1
>
> cgroup_task_migrate {
> task_lock(p)
> rcu_assign_pointer(tsk->cgroups, newcg);
> task_unlock(tsk);
>
> write_lock(&css_set_lock);
> if (!list_empty(&tsk->cg_list))
> list_move(&tsk->cg_list, &newcg->tasks);
> write_unlock(&css_set_lock);
>
> write_lock(&css_set_lock);
> put_css_set(oldcg);
> list_add(&child->cg_list, &child->cgroups->tasks); (1)
Man, that's confusing. :)
> On (1), child->cgroups should have the value of newcg and not oldcg
> due to the memory ordering implied by the locking of css_set_lock. Now
> I can't guarantee that because I'm no memory ordering expert. And even
> if it's safe, it's so very non obvious that I now agree with you:
> let's revert the patch and restart with a better base by gathering
> all the cgroup fork code in the current cgroup_post_fork place.
Aye aye, let's move everything to cgroup_post_fork() and then we don't
have to worry about grabbing task_lock multiple times.
Thanks.
--
tejun
_______________________________________________
Containers mailing list
Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
