From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Glauber Costa <glommer-bzQdu9zFT3WakBO8gow8eQ@public.gmane.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/8] cgroup: deactivate CSS's and mark cgroup dead before
	invoking ->pre_destroy()
Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2012 17:42:25 +0400
Message-ID: <50912AC1.508@parallels.com>
References: <1351657365-25055-1-git-send-email-tj@kernel.org>
	<1351657365-25055-5-git-send-email-tj@kernel.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <containers-bounces-cunTk1MwBs9QetFLy7KEm3xJsTq8ys+cHZ5vskTnxNA@public.gmane.org>
In-Reply-To: <1351657365-25055-5-git-send-email-tj-DgEjT+Ai2ygdnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org>
List-Id: <cgroups.vger.kernel.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/options/containers>, 
	<mailto:containers-request-cunTk1MwBs9QetFLy7KEm3xJsTq8ys+cHZ5vskTnxNA@public.gmane.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/containers/>
List-Post: <mailto:containers-cunTk1MwBs9QetFLy7KEm3xJsTq8ys+cHZ5vskTnxNA@public.gmane.org>
List-Help: <mailto:containers-request-cunTk1MwBs9QetFLy7KEm3xJsTq8ys+cHZ5vskTnxNA@public.gmane.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers>,
	<mailto:containers-request-cunTk1MwBs9QetFLy7KEm3xJsTq8ys+cHZ5vskTnxNA@public.gmane.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: containers-bounces-cunTk1MwBs9QetFLy7KEm3xJsTq8ys+cHZ5vskTnxNA@public.gmane.org
Errors-To: containers-bounces-cunTk1MwBs9QetFLy7KEm3xJsTq8ys+cHZ5vskTnxNA@public.gmane.org
To: Tejun Heo <tj-DgEjT+Ai2ygdnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org>
Cc: linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, mhocko-AlSwsSmVLrQ@public.gmane.org, hannes-druUgvl0LCNAfugRpC6u6w@public.gmane.org, cgroups-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, containers-cunTk1MwBs9QetFLy7KEm3xJsTq8ys+cHZ5vskTnxNA@public.gmane.org

On 10/31/2012 08:22 AM, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Because ->pre_destroy() could fail and can't be called under
> cgroup_mutex, cgroup destruction did something very ugly.
> 
>   1. Grab cgroup_mutex and verify it can be destroyed; fail otherwise.
> 
>   2. Release cgroup_mutex and call ->pre_destroy().
> 
>   3. Re-grab cgroup_mutex and verify it can still be destroyed; fail
>      otherwise.
> 
>   4. Continue destroying.
> 
> In addition to being ugly, it has been always broken in various ways.
> For example, memcg ->pre_destroy() expects the cgroup to be inactive
> after it's done but tasks can be attached and detached between #2 and
> #3 and the conditions that memcg verified in ->pre_destroy() might no
> longer hold by the time control reaches #3.
> 
> Now that ->pre_destroy() is no longer allowed to fail.  We can switch
> to the following.
> 
>   1. Grab cgroup_mutex and fail if it can't be destroyed; fail
>      otherwise.
> 
fail, or fail otherwise? Seems quite negative =)