Messages in this thread |  | | Subject | Re: query: [PATCH 2/2] cgroup: Remove call to synchronize_rcu in cgroup_attach_task | From | Mike Galbraith <> | Date | Wed, 13 Apr 2011 18:52:09 +0200 |
| |
On Wed, 2011-04-13 at 15:10 +0200, Paul Menage wrote: > On Thu, Apr 7, 2011 at 11:55 AM, Mike Galbraith <efault@gmx.de> wrote: > > Greetings, > > > > Wrt these patches: > > > > https://lkml.org/lkml/2010/11/24/14 [PATCH 1/2] cgroup: Set CGRP_RELEASABLE when adding to a cgroup > > https://lkml.org/lkml/2010/11/24/15 [PATCH 2/2] cgroup: Remove call to synchronize_rcu in cgroup_attach_task > > > > I received a query regarding 2/2 because a large database company is > > apparently moving tasks between cgroups frequently enough that their > > database initialization time dropped from ~11 hours to ~4 hours when > > they applied this patch. > > That sounds like a problem in their user-space code too, although I > agree that making cgroup moves faster is a good thing.
I suspect they could avoid the issue, but don't have details.
> > Curious why these got no traction. > > > > Apart from just my chronic lack of time to work on cgroups, there were > a couple of issues: > > 1) we had trouble getting the semantics right for the release_agent > notifications. Not that this is something that I suspect many people > care about, but it has been part of the API since the cpuset days. I > spent a while trying to juggle the way that release notifications were > done (via an event counter rather than a simple flag) but never got > them finished. > > 2) I have this nagging feeling that the synchronize_rcu() call in > cgroup_attach_task() was protecting more than is obvious. Certainly > when cgroups first went in, that synchronize_rcu() call meant that > cgroup_rmdir() could guarantee that if the cgroup was empty, there > were no threads in RCU-read sections accessing their old cgroup via > their RCU-proected current->cgroups pointers, so objects could just be > deleted at that point. A year or two ago we RCU-ified most/all of the > cgroup deletion path, so this shouldn't be an issue now, but I'm still > a bit worried that we missed something. I'm probably being > over-paranoid though.
Thanks for the info.
> We're looking at testing these patches at Google, which will give a > little more confidence.
Goody. I'll be doing some small scale beating too fwiw.
> There's a conflicting patchset (allowing moving entire processes by > writing to cgroup.procs) that Ben Blum has been trying to get in for > ages, and which has just gone in to -mm - the RCU change patches will > likely need a bit of merge love.
Yeah, saw those.
-Mike
|  |