lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2011]   [Nov]   [28]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [RFC] cgroups: freezer -- Allow to attach a task to a frozen cgroup
> > > +static int freezer_can_attach_task(struct cgroup *cgroup, struct task_struct *task)
> > > +{
> > > +       struct freezer *old_freezer;
> > > +       struct freezer *freezer;
> > > +
> > > +       int goal_state, orig_state;
> > > +       int retval = 0;
> > > +
> > > +       old_freezer = task_freezer(task);
> > > +       freezer = cgroup_freezer(cgroup);
> > > +
> > > +       spin_lock_irq(&freezer->lock);
> > > +
> > > +       if (!spin_trylock_irq(&old_freezer->lock)) {
> > > +               retval = -EBUSY;
> >
> > I think EBUSY is not a good idea in this place. We can do something
> > like double_rq_lock.
> >
>
> Could you please elaborate? freezers are guarded with spinlocks so I think
> we should stick with them instead of poking rq (or whatever) directly.

It's misunderstanding. I want to say that we can avoid dead lock if we
will take a lock with a smaller address at first.

if (&freezer->lock > &old_freezer->lock) {
spin_lock_irq(&old_freezer->lock)
spin_lock_irq(&freezer->lock);
} else {
spin_lock_irq(&freezer->lock);
spin_lock_irq(&old_freezer->lock)
}

>
> >
> > > +
> > > +static void freezer_cancel_attach(struct cgroup_subsys *ss,
> > > +                                 struct cgroup *cgroup,
> > > +                                 struct cgroup *old_cgroup,
> > > +                                 struct task_struct *task)
> > > +{
> > > +       struct freezer *freezer = cgroup_freezer(old_cgroup);
> > > +       int retval = 0;
> > > +
> > > +       spin_lock_irq(&freezer->lock);
> > > +       retval = freezer_task_transition(task, freezer->state);
> > > +       if (retval)
> > > +               pr_warning("freezer: Can't move task (pid %d) to %s state\n",
> > > +                          task_pid_nr(task),
> > > +                          freezer_state_strs[freezer->state]);
> >
> > It's strange. A rollback can't fail. We have three situations:
> >
> > frozen -> frozen
> > thawed -> frozen
> > frozen -> thawed
> >
> > In first and second cases cancel_request can't fail.
> > In the third we have a problem, which may be solved if we will call
> > thaw_process(task) from attach_task(), we can do that, because
> > thaw_process() can't fail. It solves a problem, because
> > freezer_cancel_attach will be executed for the first and second cases
> > only.
> >
> > If my suggestion is correct, we can replace pr_warning on BUG_ON
> >
>
> Yes, the case which can fail is
>
> frozen->(can_attach_task)->thawed
> (cgroup_task_migrate failure)
> thawed->(cancel_attach)->frozen
>
> and we should never fail here since otherwise we would not have
> a "frozen" state before. But I think placing BUG_ON is too severe
> here, maybe WARN_ON_ONCE(1) would fit better?

It's true, if a task is not being executed between thaw_process() and
freeze_task().
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2011-11-28 15:13    [W:2.171 / U:0.008 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site