On 2014/3/27 23:35, Sasha Levin wrote: > On 03/04/2014 07:57 PM, Li Zefan wrote: >> On 2014/3/5 3:47, Tejun Heo wrote: >>> On Tue, Mar 04, 2014 at 12:20:45PM -0500, Sasha Levin wrote: >>>>> Hrm... there is a PF_EXITING check there already: >>>>> >>>>> #define task_css_set_check(task, __c) \ >>>>> rcu_dereference_check((task)->cgroups, \ >>>>> lockdep_is_held(&cgroup_mutex) || \ >>>>> lockdep_is_held(&css_set_rwsem) || \ >>>>> ((task)->flags & PF_EXITING) || (__c)) >>>>> >>>>> I see it's not happening on Linus's master so I'll run a bisection to figure out what broke it. >>>> >>>> Hi Tejun, >>>> >>>> It bisects down to your patch: "cgroup: drop task_lock() protection >>>> around task->cgroups". I'll look into it later unless it's obvious >>>> to you. >>> >>> Hmmm... maybe I'm confused and PF_EXITING is not set there and >>> task_lock was what held off the lockdep warning. Confused.... >>> >> >> Because this cgroup_exit() is called in a failure path in copy_process(). > > It seems there was no conclusion here and it still happens in -next, anything > we can do about it? > I'll send a patch to fix it. Thanks! _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
