From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752567Ab1JJRbJ (ORCPT ); Mon, 10 Oct 2011 13:31:09 -0400 Received: from mail-iy0-f174.google.com ([209.85.210.174]:45181 "EHLO mail-iy0-f174.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751284Ab1JJRbI (ORCPT ); Mon, 10 Oct 2011 13:31:08 -0400 Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2011 10:31:02 -0700 From: Tejun Heo To: Oleg Nesterov Cc: rjw@sisk.pl, paul@paulmenage.org, lizf@cn.fujitsu.com, linux-pm@lists.linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, containers@lists.linux-foundation.org, fweisbec@gmail.com, matthltc@us.ibm.com, akpm@linux-foundation.org, Paul Menage Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] cgroup: always lock threadgroup during migration Message-ID: <20111010173102.GF8100@google.com> References: <1315159280-25032-1-git-send-email-htejun@gmail.com> <1315159280-25032-5-git-send-email-htejun@gmail.com> <20110918174117.GB2384@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20110918174117.GB2384@redhat.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sun, Sep 18, 2011 at 07:41:17PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote: > On 09/05, Tejun Heo wrote: > > > > * Remove -ESRCH failure path from cgroup_task_migrate(). With the > > above changes, it's guaranteed to be called only for live tasks. > > I think you can remove another similar check, > > > @@ -2044,6 +2044,10 @@ int cgroup_attach_proc(struct cgroup *cgrp, struct task_struct *leader) > > tsk = leader; > > i = 0; > > do { > > + /* @tsk either already exited or can't exit until the end */ > > + if (tsk->flags & PF_EXITING) > > + continue; > > + > > /* as per above, nr_threads may decrease, but not increase. */ > > BUG_ON(i >= group_size); > > get_task_struct(tsk); > > And then cgroup_attach_proc() does > > for (i = 0; i < group_size; i++) { > ... > task_lock(tsk); > if (tsk->flags & PF_EXITING) { > task_unlock(tsk); > continue; > > Afaics, this is no longer needed. Indeed, removed. Thank you. -- tejun