Re: [PATCH 2/3] don't take cgroup_mutex in destroy()

[Li Zefan <lizefan-hv44wF8Li93QT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org>]

Tejun Heo wrote:

> On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 07:49:17PM -0300, Glauber Costa wrote:
>> Most of the destroy functions are only doing very simple things
>> like freeing memory.
>>
>> The ones who goes through lists and such, already use its own
>> locking for those.
>>
>> * The cgroup itself won't go away until we free it, (after destroy)
>> * The parent won't go away because we hold a reference count
>> * There are no more tasks in the cgroup, and the cgroup is declared
>>   dead (cgroup_is_removed() == true)
>>
>> For the blk-cgroup and the cpusets, I got the impression that the mutex
>> is still necessary.
>>
>> For those, I grabbed it from within the destroy function itself.
>>
>> If the maintainer for those subsystems consider it safe to remove
>> it, we can discuss it separately.
> 
> I really don't like cgroup_lock() usage spreading more.  It's
> something which should be contained in cgroup.c proper.  I looked at
> the existing users a while ago and they seemed to be compensating
> deficencies in API, so, if at all possible, let's not spread the
> disease.
> 


Agreed. I used to do cleanups to remove cgroup_lock()s in subsystems
which are really not necessary.