On Wed 31-10-12 13:11:02, Tejun Heo wrote: > Hello, > > On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 1:08 PM, Michal Hocko <mhocko@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > local_irq_disable doesn't guarantee atomicity, because other CPUs will > > Maybe it should say atomicity on the local CPU. That would be more clear but being more verbose doesn't hurt either :P > > see the change in steps so this is a bit misleading. The real reason > > AFAICS is that we do not want to hang in css_tryget from IRQ context > > (does this really happen btw.?) which would interrupt cgroup_rmdir > > between we add CSS_DEACT_BIAS and the group is marked CGRP_REMOVED. > > Or am I still missing the point? > > Yeah, that's the correct one. We don't want tryget happening between > DEACT_BIAS and REMOVED as it can hang forever there. -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
