[lkml]   [2011]   [Dec]   [9]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH UPDATED AGAIN 03/10] threadgroup: extend threadgroup_lock() to cover exit and exec
On Thu, Dec 08, 2011 at 12:50:55PM -0800, Tejun Heo wrote:
> (Note for Linus at the bottom)
> threadgroup_lock() protected only protected against new addition to
> the threadgroup, which was inherently somewhat incomplete and
> problematic for its only user cgroup. On-going migration could race
> against exec and exit leading to interesting problems - the symmetry
> between various attach methods, task exiting during method execution,
> ->exit() racing against attach methods, migrating task switching basic
> properties during exec and so on.
> This patch extends threadgroup_lock() such that it protects against
> all three threadgroup altering operations - fork, exit and exec. For
> exit, threadgroup_change_begin/end() calls are added to exit_signals
> around assertion of PF_EXITING. For exec, threadgroup_[un]lock() are
> updated to also grab and release cred_guard_mutex.
> With this change, threadgroup_lock() guarantees that the target
> threadgroup will remain stable - no new task will be added, no new
> PF_EXITING will be set and exec won't happen.
> The next patch will update cgroup so that it can take full advantage
> of this change.
> -v2: beefed up comment as suggested by Frederic.
> -v3: narrowed scope of protection in exit path as suggested by
> Frederic.
> Signed-off-by: Tejun Heo <>
> Reviewed-by: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <>
> Acked-by: Li Zefan <>
> Cc: Oleg Nesterov <>
> Cc: Andrew Morton <>
> Cc: Paul Menage <>
> Cc: Frederic Weisbecker <>
> Cc: Linus Torvalds <>
> ---
> Okay, narrowed exit path protection down to setting of PF_EXITING
> itself. ->exit() on dangling tasks is a bit weird but I don't think
> it's too bad. Frederic, are you okay with this version?

Yeah that new scheme that only protects PF_EXITING may look a bit
strange. But I think we are fine. With rcu list traversal, it should
be safe even if a group member is concurrently dropped from the list (in that
case all we check if its PF_EXITING then we give up). And we may
have a concurrent ->exit() but that should be fine too.


Acked-by: Frederic Weisbecker <>

> Linus, if Frederic is okay with it, I'm gonna rebase the series on top
> of freezer changes in pm tree to avoid conflicts in cgroup_freezer,
> which sits between cgroup and freezer, both of which are going through
> non-trivial changes, push the branch to linux-next and put pending
> cgroup patches on top. Please scream if you're mighty unhappy with it
> or have a better idea.
> Thank you.

 \ /
  Last update: 2011-12-10 00:45    [W:0.071 / U:18.812 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site