From: Li Zefan <lizefan-hv44wF8Li93QT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org>
To: Tejun Heo <tj-DgEjT+Ai2ygdnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org>
Cc: Oleg Nesterov <oleg-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org>,
Dave Jones <davej-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org>,
Linux Kernel
<linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org>,
Alexander Viro
<viro-RmSDqhL/yNMiFSDQTTA3OLVCufUGDwFn@public.gmane.org>,
cgroups-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org
Subject: Re: lockdep trace from prepare_bprm_creds
Date: Sat, 9 Mar 2013 10:11:51 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <513A9A67.60909@huawei.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20130307193820.GB3209-Gd/HAXX7CRxy/B6EtB590w@public.gmane.org>
On 2013/3/8 3:38, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On Thu, Mar 07, 2013 at 08:12:42PM +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>> Well yes, I agree. I think that perfomance-wise threadgroup_change_begin()
>> in de_thread() is fine, and perhaps it is even more clean because we are
>> going to do the thread-group change. The scope of cred_guard_mutex is huge,
>> it doesn't look very nice in threadgroup_lock().
>>
>> But we should avoid the cgroup-specific hooks as much as possible, so I
>> like your patch more.
>
> I don't really mind how it's done but while my approach seems to limit
> itself to cgroup proper, threadgroup locking is actually more invasive
> by meddling with cred_mutex. As you said, yours is the cleaner and
> probably more permanent one here.
>
Agreed.
Now we need that patch to be resent with SOB and proper changelog.
>>> + if (threadgroup && !thread_group_leader(tsk)) {
>>> + /*
>>> + * a race with de_thread from another thread's exec() may
>>> + * strip us of our leadership, if this happens, there is no
>>> + * choice but to throw this task away and try again; this
>>> + * is "double-double-toil-and-trouble-check locking".
>>> + */
>>> + threadgroup_unlock(tsk);
>>> + put_task_struct(tsk);
>>> + goto retry_find_task;
>>> + }
>>>
>>> + ret = -ENODEV;
>>> + if (cgroup_lock_live_group(cgrp)) {
>>> + if (threadgroup)
>>> + ret = cgroup_attach_proc(cgrp, tsk);
>>
>> Offtopic, but with or without this change I do not understand the
>> thread_group_leader/retry_find_task logic.
>>
>> Why do we actually need to restart? We do not really care if it is leader
>> or not, we only need to ensure we can safely use while_each_thread() to
>> find all !PF_EXITING threads.
>
> If my memory serves me right (which BTW often fails), it's cgroup API
> thing. cgroup wants to guarantee to the controllers that if multiple
> tasks are migrated together, they always constitute a threadgroup and
> the first one is the leader. ISTR a controller callback which depends
> on the first one being the leader.
>
It did serve you right this time. :)
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Li Zefan <lizefan@huawei.com>
To: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
Cc: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>, Dave Jones <davej@redhat.com>,
Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Alexander Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>,
<cgroups@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: lockdep trace from prepare_bprm_creds
Date: Sat, 9 Mar 2013 10:11:51 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <513A9A67.60909@huawei.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20130307193820.GB3209@htj.dyndns.org>
On 2013/3/8 3:38, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On Thu, Mar 07, 2013 at 08:12:42PM +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>> Well yes, I agree. I think that perfomance-wise threadgroup_change_begin()
>> in de_thread() is fine, and perhaps it is even more clean because we are
>> going to do the thread-group change. The scope of cred_guard_mutex is huge,
>> it doesn't look very nice in threadgroup_lock().
>>
>> But we should avoid the cgroup-specific hooks as much as possible, so I
>> like your patch more.
>
> I don't really mind how it's done but while my approach seems to limit
> itself to cgroup proper, threadgroup locking is actually more invasive
> by meddling with cred_mutex. As you said, yours is the cleaner and
> probably more permanent one here.
>
Agreed.
Now we need that patch to be resent with SOB and proper changelog.
>>> + if (threadgroup && !thread_group_leader(tsk)) {
>>> + /*
>>> + * a race with de_thread from another thread's exec() may
>>> + * strip us of our leadership, if this happens, there is no
>>> + * choice but to throw this task away and try again; this
>>> + * is "double-double-toil-and-trouble-check locking".
>>> + */
>>> + threadgroup_unlock(tsk);
>>> + put_task_struct(tsk);
>>> + goto retry_find_task;
>>> + }
>>>
>>> + ret = -ENODEV;
>>> + if (cgroup_lock_live_group(cgrp)) {
>>> + if (threadgroup)
>>> + ret = cgroup_attach_proc(cgrp, tsk);
>>
>> Offtopic, but with or without this change I do not understand the
>> thread_group_leader/retry_find_task logic.
>>
>> Why do we actually need to restart? We do not really care if it is leader
>> or not, we only need to ensure we can safely use while_each_thread() to
>> find all !PF_EXITING threads.
>
> If my memory serves me right (which BTW often fails), it's cgroup API
> thing. cgroup wants to guarantee to the controllers that if multiple
> tasks are migrated together, they always constitute a threadgroup and
> the first one is the leader. ISTR a controller callback which depends
> on the first one being the leader.
>
It did serve you right this time. :)
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-03-09 2:11 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 45+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2013-03-06 22:36 lockdep trace from prepare_bprm_creds Dave Jones
[not found] ` <20130306223657.GA7392-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org>
2013-03-07 17:25 ` Oleg Nesterov
2013-03-07 17:25 ` Oleg Nesterov
2013-03-07 18:01 ` Tejun Heo
[not found] ` <20130307180139.GD29601-Gd/HAXX7CRxy/B6EtB590w@public.gmane.org>
2013-03-07 18:03 ` Tejun Heo
2013-03-07 18:03 ` Tejun Heo
[not found] ` <20130307180332.GE29601-Gd/HAXX7CRxy/B6EtB590w@public.gmane.org>
2013-03-07 19:12 ` Oleg Nesterov
2013-03-07 19:12 ` Oleg Nesterov
[not found] ` <20130307191242.GA18265-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org>
2013-03-07 19:38 ` Tejun Heo
2013-03-07 19:38 ` Tejun Heo
[not found] ` <20130307193820.GB3209-Gd/HAXX7CRxy/B6EtB590w@public.gmane.org>
2013-03-09 2:11 ` Li Zefan [this message]
2013-03-09 2:11 ` Li Zefan
[not found] ` <513A9A67.60909-hv44wF8Li93QT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org>
2013-03-09 3:29 ` Tejun Heo
2013-03-09 3:29 ` Tejun Heo
[not found] ` <20130309032936.GT14556-9pTldWuhBndy/B6EtB590w@public.gmane.org>
2013-03-09 7:47 ` Li Zefan
2013-03-09 7:47 ` Li Zefan
[not found] ` <513AE918.7020704-hv44wF8Li93QT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org>
2013-03-09 20:00 ` [PATCH 0/1] do not abuse ->cred_guard_mutex in threadgroup_lock() Oleg Nesterov
2013-03-09 20:00 ` Oleg Nesterov
2013-03-09 20:01 ` [PATCH 1/1] " Oleg Nesterov
[not found] ` <20130309200106.GB8149-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org>
2013-03-09 20:15 ` Tejun Heo
2013-03-09 20:15 ` Tejun Heo
2013-03-11 1:50 ` Li Zefan
2013-03-11 1:50 ` Li Zefan
[not found] ` <20130309200046.GA8149-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org>
2013-03-21 16:21 ` [PATCH] " Oleg Nesterov
2013-03-21 16:21 ` Oleg Nesterov
[not found] ` <20130321162138.GA21859-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org>
2013-03-21 22:06 ` Andrew Morton
2013-03-21 22:06 ` Andrew Morton
[not found] ` <20130321150626.a7934d989fb80d835fa92255-de/tnXTf+JLsfHDXvbKv3WD2FQJk+8+b@public.gmane.org>
2013-03-22 13:20 ` Oleg Nesterov
2013-03-22 13:20 ` Oleg Nesterov
2013-03-19 22:02 ` [PATCH cgroup/for-3.10] cgroup: make cgroup_mutex outer to threadgroup_lock Tejun Heo
[not found] ` <20130319220246.GR3042-Gd/HAXX7CRxy/B6EtB590w@public.gmane.org>
2013-03-20 0:58 ` Li Zefan
2013-03-20 0:58 ` Li Zefan
2013-03-20 15:03 ` Tejun Heo
[not found] ` <20130320150351.GW3042-Gd/HAXX7CRxy/B6EtB590w@public.gmane.org>
2013-03-20 18:35 ` Oleg Nesterov
2013-03-20 18:35 ` Oleg Nesterov
[not found] ` <20130320183523.GA29365-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org>
2013-03-20 18:42 ` Tejun Heo
2013-03-20 18:42 ` Tejun Heo
[not found] ` <CAOS58YPxGXt+iq1GZ4hryqm1Z_p+r7eRRC7ruUDDd=LQrWtAxg-JsoAwUIsXosN+BqQ9rBEUg@public.gmane.org>
2013-03-21 16:17 ` Oleg Nesterov
2013-03-21 16:17 ` Oleg Nesterov
2013-03-07 18:21 ` lockdep trace from prepare_bprm_creds Tejun Heo
2013-03-07 18:21 ` Tejun Heo
[not found] ` <20130307182140.GF29601-Gd/HAXX7CRxy/B6EtB590w@public.gmane.org>
2013-03-07 18:32 ` Oleg Nesterov
2013-03-07 18:32 ` Oleg Nesterov
[not found] ` <20130307183213.GA18022-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org>
2013-03-07 19:33 ` Tejun Heo
2013-03-07 19:33 ` Tejun Heo
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=513A9A67.60909@huawei.com \
--to=lizefan-hv44wf8li93qt0dzr+alfa@public.gmane.org \
--cc=cgroups-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org \
--cc=davej-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org \
--cc=linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org \
--cc=oleg-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org \
--cc=tj-DgEjT+Ai2ygdnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org \
--cc=viro-RmSDqhL/yNMiFSDQTTA3OLVCufUGDwFn@public.gmane.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.