From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754386Ab2BVBds (ORCPT ); Tue, 21 Feb 2012 20:33:48 -0500 Received: from mail-iy0-f174.google.com ([209.85.210.174]:59990 "EHLO mail-iy0-f174.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754248Ab2BVBdq (ORCPT ); Tue, 21 Feb 2012 20:33:46 -0500 Authentication-Results: mr.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of fweisbec@gmail.com designates 10.50.155.170 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=fweisbec@gmail.com; dkim=pass header.i=fweisbec@gmail.com Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2012 02:33:41 +0100 From: Frederic Weisbecker To: "Paul E. McKenney" Cc: Mandeep Singh Baines , Tejun Heo , Li Zefan , LKML , Oleg Nesterov , Andrew Morton Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] cgroup: Walk task list under tasklist_lock in cgroup_enable_task_cg_list Message-ID: <20120222013339.GG13403@somewhere.redhat.com> References: <1328668647-24125-1-git-send-email-fweisbec@gmail.com> <1328668647-24125-3-git-send-email-fweisbec@gmail.com> <20120221222343.GU3090@google.com> <20120222005525.GC13403@somewhere.redhat.com> <20120222011934.GX2375@linux.vnet.ibm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20120222011934.GX2375@linux.vnet.ibm.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 05:19:34PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > On Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 01:55:28AM +0100, Frederic Weisbecker wrote: > > On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 02:23:43PM -0800, Mandeep Singh Baines wrote: > > > Frederic Weisbecker (fweisbec@gmail.com) wrote: > > > > Walking through the tasklist in cgroup_enable_task_cg_list() inside > > > > an RCU read side critical section is not enough because: > > > > > > > > - RCU is not (yet) safe against while_each_thread() > > > > > > > > - If we use only RCU, a forking task that has passed cgroup_post_fork() > > > > without seeing use_task_css_set_links == 1 is not guaranteed to have > > > > its child immediately visible in the tasklist if we walk through it > > > > remotely with RCU. In this case it will be missing in its css_set's > > > > task list. > > > > > > > > Thus we need to traverse the list (unfortunately) under the > > > > tasklist_lock. It makes us safe against while_each_thread() and also > > > > make sure we see all forked task that have been added to the tasklist. > > > > > > > > As a secondary effect, reading and writing use_task_css_set_links are > > > > now well ordered against tasklist traversing and modification. The new > > > > layout is: > > > > > > > > CPU 0 CPU 1 > > > > > > > > use_task_css_set_links = 1 write_lock(tasklist_lock) > > > > read_lock(tasklist_lock) add task to tasklist > > > > do_each_thread() { write_unlock(tasklist_lock) > > > > add thread to css set links if (use_task_css_set_links) > > > > } while_each_thread() add thread to css set links > > > > read_unlock(tasklist_lock) > > > > > > > > If CPU 0 traverse the list after the task has been added to the tasklist > > > > then it is correctly added to the css set links. OTOH if CPU 0 traverse > > > > the tasklist before the new task had the opportunity to be added to the > > > > tasklist because it was too early in the fork process, then CPU 1 > > > > catches up and add the task to the css set links after it added the task > > > > to the tasklist. The right value of use_task_css_set_links is guaranteed > > > > to be visible from CPU 1 due to the LOCK/UNLOCK implicit barrier properties: > > > > the read_unlock on CPU 0 makes the write on use_task_css_set_links happening > > > > and the write_lock on CPU 1 make the read of use_task_css_set_links that comes > > > > afterward to return the correct value. > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Frederic Weisbecker > > > > Cc: Tejun Heo > > > > Cc: Li Zefan > > > > Cc: Mandeep Singh Baines > > > > > > Reviewed-by: Mandeep Singh Baines > > > > > > Sorry for being late. My feedback is really just comments. > > > > > > > Cc: Oleg Nesterov > > > > Cc: Andrew Morton > > > > Cc: Paul E. McKenney > > > > --- > > > > kernel/cgroup.c | 20 ++++++++++++++++++++ > > > > 1 files changed, 20 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) > > > > > > > > diff --git a/kernel/cgroup.c b/kernel/cgroup.c > > > > index 6e4eb43..c6877fe 100644 > > > > --- a/kernel/cgroup.c > > > > +++ b/kernel/cgroup.c > > > > @@ -2707,6 +2707,14 @@ static void cgroup_enable_task_cg_lists(void) > > > > struct task_struct *p, *g; > > > > write_lock(&css_set_lock); > > > > > > You might want to re-test use_task_css_set_links once you have the lock > > > in order to avoid an unnecessary do_each_thread()/while_each_thread() in > > > case you race between reading the value and entering the loop. This is > > > a potential optimization in a rare case so maybe not worth the LOC. > > > > Makes sense. I'll do that in a seperate patch. > > > > > > > > > use_task_css_set_links = 1; > > > > + /* > > > > + * We need tasklist_lock because RCU is not safe against > > > > + * while_each_thread(). Besides, a forking task that has passed > > > > + * cgroup_post_fork() without seeing use_task_css_set_links = 1 > > > > + * is not guaranteed to have its child immediately visible in the > > > > + * tasklist if we walk through it with RCU. > > > > + */ > > > > > > Maybe add TODO to remove the lock once do_each_thread()/while_each_thread() > > > is made rcu safe. On a large system, it could take a while to iterate > > > over every thread in the system. Thats a long time to hold a spinlock. > > > But it only happens once so probably not that big a deal. > > > > I think that even if while_each_thread() was RCU safe, that wouldn't > > work here. > > > > Unless I'm mistaken, we have no guarantee that a remote list_add_rcu() > > is immediately visible by the local CPU if it walks the list under > > rcu_read_lock() only. > > Indeed, the guarantee is instead that -if- a reader encounters a newly > added list element, then that reader will see any initialization of that > list element carried out prior to the list_add_rcu(). > > Memory barriers are about ordering, not about making memory writes > visible faster. > > Thanx, Paul Cool that confirm what I was thinking. Thanks for the clarification!