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 S1759492AbcJQWSG (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
        Mon, 17 Oct 2016 18:18:06 -0400
Received: from mga03.intel.com ([134.134.136.65]:56926 "EHLO mga03.intel.com"
        rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
        id S1759383AbcJQWRl (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Mon, 17 Oct 2016 18:17:41 -0400
X-ExtLoop1: 1
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.31,358,1473145200"; 
   d="scan'208";a="1071762757"
Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2016 15:17:40 -0700
From: "Luck, Tony" <tony.luck@intel.com>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Cc: Fenghua Yu <fenghua.yu@intel.com>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <h.peter.anvin@intel.com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Stephane Eranian <eranian@google.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@suse.de>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@intel.com>,
        Nilay Vaish <nilayvaish@gmail.com>, Shaohua Li <shli@fb.com>,
        David Carrillo-Cisneros <davidcc@google.com>,
        Ravi V Shankar <ravi.v.shankar@intel.com>,
        Sai Prakhya <sai.praneeth.prakhya@intel.com>,
        Vikas Shivappa <vikas.shivappa@linux.intel.com>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, x86 <x86@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 15/18] x86/intel_rdt: Add tasks files
Message-ID: <20161017221739.GA5978@intel.com>
References: <1476497548-11169-1-git-send-email-fenghua.yu@intel.com>
 <1476497548-11169-16-git-send-email-fenghua.yu@intel.com>
 <alpine.DEB.2.20.1610172330350.6407@nanos>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.20.1610172330350.6407@nanos>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Tue, Oct 18, 2016 at 12:01:01AM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > +	/* Don't allow if there are processes in this group */
> > +	read_lock(&tasklist_lock);
> > +	for_each_process(p) {
> > +		if (p->closid == rdtgrp->closid) {
> > +			read_unlock(&tasklist_lock);
> > +			rdtgroup_kn_unlock(kn);
> > +			return -EBUSY;
> > +		}
> > +	}
> > +	read_unlock(&tasklist_lock);
> 
> I wonder, whether we should simply give those tasks back to the default
> group, same as we do with the cpus.

Leftover inherited semantics from the cgroup version. It would
simplify the code here (one less error case to handle) if we
did drop this.  I can't come up with a good reason why we'd
want to make the rmdir fail. I can imagine that a sysadmin
dealing with an application that is a fork bomb being happy
about not having to race to move things out so they can do the
rmdir.

-Tony