lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2008]   [Dec]   [11]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [RFC][PATCH 2/3] CGroups: Use hierarchy_mutex in memory controller
* KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> [2008-12-11 10:05:01]:

> On Wed, 10 Dec 2008 16:52:57 -0800
> Paul Menage <menage@google.com> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 4:49 PM, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
> > <kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > an operation like rmdir() in somewhere.
> > > hierarchy_lock for A (acquired)
> > > hierarchy_lock for B (waiting)
> > >
> > > in subsys A.
> > > mmap_sem (acquired)
> > > hierarchy_lock for A (waiting)
> > > in subsys B.
> > > hierarchy_lock for B (aquired)
> > > mmap_sem (waiting)
> > >
> >
> > That's a valid deadlock - you'd need to require the mmap_sem nests
> > either inside all hierarchy_mutexes or else outside all of them.
> >
> This was a found dead lock between memcg and cpuset.
>
> another one was
>
> an operation like rmdir() in somewhere.
> hierarchy_lock for memcg (acquired)
> hierarchy_lock for B (waiting)
>
> in subsys B.
> hierarchy_lock for B (aquired)

But then the hierarchy_locks acquired will be different right?

> have to do some memory reclaim -> hierarchy_lock for memcg (waiting)
>
> I have no objections to hierarchy_lock itself but calling context to memcg is very
> complicated and simple replace of these locks will be just a small help.

Could you please explain the race better?

--
Balbir


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2008-12-11 07:35    [W:0.065 / U:0.204 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site