linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com>
To: Li Zefan <lizf@cn.fujitsu.com>, Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Mandeep Singh Baines <msb@chromium.org>,
	Containers <containers@lists.linux-foundation.org>,
	Cgroups <cgroups@vger.kernel.org>,
	KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>,
	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>,
	Paul Menage <paul@paulmenage.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: Q: cgroup: Questions about possible issues in cgroup locking
Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2011 04:43:36 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20111221034334.GD17668@somewhere> (raw)

Hi,

Starring at some parts of cgroups, I have a few questions:

- Is cgroup_enable_task_cg_list()'s while_each_thread() safe
against concurrent exec()? The leader may change in de_thread()
and invalidate the test done in while_each_thread().

- do_each_thread() also needs RCU and cgroup_enable_task_cg_list()
seems to remind it. But it seems there is at least one caller that
doesn't call rcu_read_lock(): update_cpu_mask() -> update_tasks_cpumask() -> cgroup_scan_tasks()

- By the time we call cgroup_post_fork(), it is ready to be woken up
and usable by the scheduler. I was thinking about a possible race
where somebody kills the child just before we call cgroup_post_fork()
and then it ends up calling cgroup_exit(). In this case should we perhaps
check for PF_EXITING. Of course I'm talking about a race that will certainly
never happen.
If I'm mistaken and the task can not exit concurrently, probably we don't need
the task_lock() there.

- Is the check for use_task_css_set_links in cgroup_post_fork() safe? given
it is checked outside css_set_lock?

Imagine this:

CPU 0                                                        CPU 1
----                                                         -----

cgroup_enable_task_cg() {                            
	uset_tasks_css_set_links = 1
	for_each_thread() {
		add tasks in the list
	}
}
                                                           do_fork() {
                                                               cgroup_post_fork() {
                                                                     use_tasks_css_set_links appears
                                                                     to be equal to 0 due to write/read
                                                                      not flushed. New task won't
                                                                      appear to the list.


- Is the read_lock() in cgroup_attach_proc() still necessary? It was added to protect
against exec() but now I think it is useless. rcu_read_lock() would be necessary to protect
against group_entry removal though I think.

Thanks.

             reply	other threads:[~2011-12-21  3:43 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 29+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2011-12-21  3:43 Frederic Weisbecker [this message]
2011-12-21 13:08 ` Q: cgroup: Questions about possible issues in cgroup locking Oleg Nesterov
2011-12-21 17:56   ` Frederic Weisbecker
2011-12-21 19:01     ` Mandeep Singh Baines
2011-12-21 19:08       ` Frederic Weisbecker
2011-12-21 19:24         ` Mandeep Singh Baines
2011-12-21 20:04           ` Frederic Weisbecker
2011-12-22 15:30             ` Oleg Nesterov
2012-01-04 19:36               ` Mandeep Singh Baines
2012-01-06 15:23                 ` Oleg Nesterov
2012-01-06 18:25                   ` Mandeep Singh Baines
2012-01-11 16:07                     ` Oleg Nesterov
2012-01-12  0:31                       ` Mandeep Singh Baines
2012-01-12 17:07                         ` Oleg Nesterov
2012-01-12 17:57                           ` Mandeep Singh Baines
2012-01-13 15:20                             ` Oleg Nesterov
2012-01-13 18:27                               ` Mandeep Singh Baines
2012-01-14 17:36                                 ` Oleg Nesterov
2012-01-18 23:17                                   ` Mandeep Singh Baines
2012-01-19 15:45                                     ` Oleg Nesterov
2012-01-19 18:18                                       ` Mandeep Singh Baines
2012-01-20 15:06                                         ` Oleg Nesterov
2012-03-20 19:34                                       ` Oleg Nesterov
2012-03-21 18:59                                         ` Mandeep Singh Baines
2012-03-23 17:51                                           ` Oleg Nesterov
2011-12-21 17:59   ` Frederic Weisbecker
2011-12-21 18:11     ` Oleg Nesterov
2011-12-21 18:23       ` Frederic Weisbecker
2012-02-01 16:28   ` Frederic Weisbecker

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20111221034334.GD17668@somewhere \
    --to=fweisbec@gmail.com \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=cgroups@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=containers@lists.linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=lizf@cn.fujitsu.com \
    --cc=msb@chromium.org \
    --cc=oleg@redhat.com \
    --cc=paul@paulmenage.org \
    --cc=paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
    --cc=tj@kernel.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).