lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2016]   [Nov]   [12]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: sched/autogroup: race if !sysctl_sched_autogroup_enabled ?
From
Date
On Wed, 2016-11-09 at 18:50 +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 09, 2016 at 05:59:33PM +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>
> > We need to ensure that autogroup/tg returned by autogroup_task_group()
> > can't go away if we race with autogroup_move_group(), and unless the
> > caller holds ->siglock we rely on fact that autogroup_move_group()
> > will a) see this task and b) do sched_move_task() which needs the same
> > same rq->lock.
> >
> > However. autogroup_move_group() skips for_each_thread/sched_move_task
> > if sysctl_sched_autogroup_enabled == 0.
> >
> > So. Doesn't this mean that cgroup migration to the root cgroup can race
> > with autogroup_move_group() and use the soon-to-be-freed autogroup->tg?
>
> Argh, its too late for this, also jet-lag. But maybe, I can sort of feel
> a hole here but cannot for the life of me still think.
>
>
> > although this is a bit off-topic. Another question is that I fail to
> > understand why sched_autogroup_create_attach() does autogroup_create()
> > and changes signal->autogroup even if !sysctl_sched_autogroup_enabled.
>
> I really cannot remember back that far, but it could be to allow
> flipping it back on. Then again, I don't think the fork path puts new
> tasks in, even if the autogroup exists.

Yeah, I've forgotten nearly everything about it too. I do recall that
the autogroup always existed for both manual on/off and migrations
cgroup <--> root.

I think autogroup should go away. Systemthing infestation is nearly
everywhere these days, and it wants to do ever more stupid shite that
will render it useless anyway.

-Mike

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2016-11-12 13:14    [W:0.164 / U:0.588 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site