On 10/22, Tejun Heo wrote: > > On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 08:04:45PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote: > > > > > I am starting to think again about a big-rw-lock around copy_process. > > > > Recently I tried to add one around dup_mmap for uprobes, but perhaps > > > > cgroups can use it too... > > > > > > If some other subsystems need it, maybe just make threadgroup locking > > > coarser? > > > > What do you mean? > > I probabl have misunderstood you Probably me ;) > but If you're gonna add big-rw-lock > around copy-process which is always gonna be grabbed, I was suggesting > maybe we could simply repurpose the existing threadgroup locking. Yes, yes. But in this case (I mean, for uprobes) "threadgroup" in the name is misleading. It should be called unconditially without any argument. Please see [PATCH 1/2] brw_mutex: big read-write mutex http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=135032816223715 [PATCH 2/2] uprobes: Use brw_mutex to fix register/unregister vs dup_mmap() race http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=135032817823720 for details, but in short 2/2 needs this giant lock to block dup_mmap() system-wide, while cgroup (currently) only needs threadgroup lock if CLONE_THREAD (ignoring do_exit) and per-task. So please forget, I no longer think it makes sense to use the same thing for uprobes and cgroups. Oleg. _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
