lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2010]   [Mar]   [30]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH tip/core/urgent] rcu: protect fork-time cgroup access
On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 02:32:04AM -0700, Matt Helsley wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 11:42:55PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > On Mon, 2010-03-29 at 14:34 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > >
> > > > And it appears that my patch is at best insufficient:
> > > > http://paste.ubuntu.com/406189/
> > > >
> > > > Left to myself, I would wrap copy_process() with rcu_read_lock(),
> > > > but I would rather hear your thoughts before doing too much more
> > > > semi-random hacking. ;-)
> > >
> > > Well, I don't think you can get away with that, copy_process() wants to
> > > sleep on quite a few places ;-) Also, locks should be taken at the
> > > smallest possible scope, unless we want to go back to BKL style
> > > locking :-)
> >
> > No argument here! ;-)
> >
> > > As to that freezer splat, you'd have to chase down the cgroup folks, I'm
> > > fully ignorant on that.
> >
> > K, adding them to CC. The two splats are:
> >
> > http://pastebin.ubuntu.com/406131/
> > http://paste.ubuntu.com/406189/
>
> Please feel free to Cc me on cgroup freezer stuff.
>
> There's a comment in the code explaining why it's not used in freezer_fork():
>
> /*
> * No lock is needed, since the task isn't on tasklist yet,
> * so it can't be moved to another cgroup, which means the
> * freezer won't be removed and will be valid during this
> * function call.
> */
> freezer = task_freezer(task);

Good to know, thank you!

So the cgroup that this task is associated with cannot be deleted in
the meantime?

Thanx, Paul


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2010-03-30 19:29    [W:0.026 / U:1.080 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site