On Sat 03-11-12 01:38:35, Tejun Heo wrote:
[...]
> diff --git a/kernel/cgroup_freezer.c b/kernel/cgroup_freezer.c
> index 4f12d31..3262537 100644
> --- a/kernel/cgroup_freezer.c
> +++ b/kernel/cgroup_freezer.c
[...]
> @@ -320,14 +388,39 @@ static void freezer_apply_state(struct freezer *freezer, bool freeze,
> * @freezer: freezer of interest
> * @freeze: whether to freeze or thaw
> *
> - * Freeze or thaw @cgroup according to @freeze.
> + * Freeze or thaw @freezer according to @freeze. The operations are
> + * recursive - all descendants of @freezer will be affected.
> */
> static void freezer_change_state(struct freezer *freezer, bool freeze)
> {
> + struct cgroup *pos;
> +
> /* update @freezer */
> spin_lock_irq(&freezer->lock);
> freezer_apply_state(freezer, freeze, CGROUP_FREEZING_SELF);
> spin_unlock_irq(&freezer->lock);
> +
> + /*
> + * Update all its descendants in pre-order traversal. Each
> + * descendant will try to inherit its parent's FREEZING state as
> + * CGROUP_FREEZING_PARENT.
> + */
> + rcu_read_lock();
> + cgroup_for_each_descendant_pre(pos, freezer->css.cgroup) {
> + struct freezer *pos_f = cgroup_freezer(pos);
> + struct freezer *parent = parent_freezer(freezer);
This doesn't seem right. Why are we interested in freezer->parent here
at all? We should either care about freezer->state & CGROUP_FREEZING or
parent = parent_freezer(pos_f), right?
> +
> + /*
> + * Our update to @parent->state is already visible which is
> + * all we need. No need to lock @parent. For more info on
> + * synchronization, see freezer_post_create().
> + */
> + spin_lock_irq(&pos_f->lock);
> + freezer_apply_state(pos_f, parent->state & CGROUP_FREEZING,
> + CGROUP_FREEZING_PARENT);
> + spin_unlock_irq(&pos_f->lock);
> + }
> + rcu_read_unlock();
> }
>
> static int freezer_write(struct cgroup *cgroup, struct cftype *cft,
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
_______________________________________________
Containers mailing list
Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
