From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org>
Subject: Re: Q: cgroup: Questions about possible issues in cgroup locking
Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2011 16:30:04 +0100
Message-ID: <20111222153004.GA30522@redhat.com>
References: <20111221034334.GD17668@somewhere> <20111221130848.GA19679@redhat.com> <20111221175632.GF17668@somewhere> <20111221190102.GE13529@google.com> <20111221190817.GI17668@somewhere> <20111221192413.GF13529@google.com> <20111221200422.GJ17668@somewhere>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Return-path: <cgroups-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org>
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20111221200422.GJ17668@somewhere>
Sender: cgroups-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org
List-ID: <cgroups.vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
To: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>
Cc: Mandeep Singh Baines <msb-F7+t8E8rja9g9hUCZPvPmw@public.gmane.org>, Li Zefan <lizf-BthXqXjhjHXQFUHtdCDX3A@public.gmane.org>, Tejun Heo <tj-DgEjT+Ai2ygdnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org>, LKML <linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org>, Containers <containers-cunTk1MwBs9QetFLy7KEm3xJsTq8ys+cHZ5vskTnxNA@public.gmane.org>, Cgroups <cgroups-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org>, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu-+CUm20s59erQFUHtdCDX3A@public.gmane.org>, Paul Menage <paul-inf54ven1CmVyaH7bEyXVA@public.gmane.org>, Andrew Morton <akpm-de/tnXTf+JLsfHDXvbKv3WD2FQJk+8+b@public.gmane.org>, "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck-23VcF4HTsmIX0ybBhKVfKdBPR1lH4CV8@public.gmane.org>

On 12/21, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
>
> On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 11:24:13AM -0800, Mandeep Singh Baines wrote:
> >
> > If you call exec from a thread other than g, g is now unlinked. So
> > "t != g" will always be true. If you then pthread_create, you now
> > have two threads so "t != __prev" will also always be true. So
> > you now have an infinite loop.
>
> Oh you're right.
>
> But then we can't use t != t->group_leader because that assumes while_each_thread()
> started on the leader.

Yes, this can't work.

Besides, we need more burriers to rely on the ->group_leader check.

See http://marc.info/?t=127688987300002

in particular, http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=127714242731448
I think this should work, but then we should do something with the
users like zap_threads().

Oleg.