From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1754246Ab1LUTIZ (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Wed, 21 Dec 2011 14:08:25 -0500
Received: from mail-wi0-f174.google.com ([209.85.212.174]:59358 "EHLO
	mail-wi0-f174.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1753557Ab1LUTIY (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Wed, 21 Dec 2011 14:08:24 -0500
Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2011 20:08:20 +0100
From: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com>
To: Mandeep Singh Baines <msb@chromium.org>
Cc: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>, Li Zefan <lizf@cn.fujitsu.com>,
        Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Containers <containers@lists.linux-foundation.org>,
        Cgroups <cgroups@vger.kernel.org>,
        KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>,
        Paul Menage <paul@paulmenage.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: Q: cgroup: Questions about possible issues in cgroup locking
Message-ID: <20111221190817.GI17668@somewhere>
References: <20111221034334.GD17668@somewhere>
 <20111221130848.GA19679@redhat.com>
 <20111221175632.GF17668@somewhere>
 <20111221190102.GE13529@google.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20111221190102.GE13529@google.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 11:01:02AM -0800, Mandeep Singh Baines wrote:
> Frederic Weisbecker (fweisbec@gmail.com) wrote:
> > On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 02:08:48PM +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > > On 12/21, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> > > > 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().
> > > 
> > > Yes. Oh, we need to do something with while_each_thread.
> > 
> > Would something like this work?
> > 
> > diff --git a/include/linux/sched.h b/include/linux/sched.h
> > index c0c5876..e002a00 100644
> > --- a/include/linux/sched.h
> > +++ b/include/linux/sched.h
> > @@ -2293,8 +2293,12 @@ extern bool current_is_single_threaded(void);
> >  #define do_each_thread(g, t) \
> >  	for (g = t = &init_task ; (g = t = next_task(g)) != &init_task ; ) do
> >  
> > -#define while_each_thread(g, t) \
> > -	while ((t = next_thread(t)) != g)
> > +#define while_each_thread(g, t)					\
> > +	while (({						\
> > +		struct task_struct *__prev = t;			\
> > +		t = next_thread(t);				\
> > +		t != __prev && t != g;				\
> 
> Hi,
> 
> Don't you still have an (highly unlikely) race if you exec
> and then pthread_create()?

I'm not sure what you mean.

> 
> Instead of:
> 
> t != __prev && t != g;
> 
> How about:
> 
> t != t->group_leader;

That might work too but we need a pair of memory barriers.