Re: [RFC][PATCH 4/4] cgroup-memcg fix frequent EBUSY at rmdir v2

[Paul Menage <menage@google.com>]

On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 2:47 AM, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
<kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> wrote:
>        CGRP_NOTIFY_ON_RELEASE,
> +       /* Someone calls rmdir() and is wating for this cgroup is released */

/* A thread is in rmdir() waiting to destroy this cgroup */

Also document that it can only be set/cleared when you're holding the
inode_sem for the cgroup directory. And we should probably move this
enum inside cgroup.c, since nothing in the header file uses it.

> +       CGRP_WAIT_ON_RMDIR,
>  };

>
>  struct cgroup {
> @@ -350,7 +352,7 @@ int cgroup_is_descendant(const struct cg
>  struct cgroup_subsys {
>        struct cgroup_subsys_state *(*create)(struct cgroup_subsys *ss,
>                                                  struct cgroup *cgrp);
> -       void (*pre_destroy)(struct cgroup_subsys *ss, struct cgroup *cgrp);
> +       int (*pre_destroy)(struct cgroup_subsys *ss, struct cgroup *cgrp);

Can you update the documentation to indicate what an error result from
pre_destroy indicates? Can pre_destroy() be called multiple times for
the same subsystem/cgroup?

> +
> +       /* wake up rmdir() waiter....it should fail.*/

/* Wake up rmdir() waiter - the rmdir should fail since the cgroup is
no longer empty */

But is this safe? If we do a pre-destroy, is it OK to let new tasks
into the cgroup?

> @@ -2446,6 +2461,8 @@ static long cgroup_create(struct cgroup
>
>        mutex_unlock(&cgroup_mutex);
>        mutex_unlock(&cgrp->dentry->d_inode->i_mutex);
> +       if (wakeup_on_rmdir(parent))
> +               cgroup_rmdir_wakeup_waiters();

I don't think that there can be a waiter, since rmdir() would hold the
parent's inode semaphore, which would block this thread before it gets
to cgroup_create()

> +DECLARE_WAIT_QUEUE_HEAD(cgroup_rmdir_waitq);
> +
> +static void cgroup_rmdir_wakeup_waiters(void)
> +{
> +       wake_up_all(&cgroup_rmdir_waitq);
> +}
> +

I think you can merge wakeup_on_rmdir() and
cgroup_rmdir_wakeup_waiters() into a single function,
cgroup_wakeup_rmdir(struct cgroup *)


>
> +       if (signal_pending(current))
> +               return -EINTR;

I think it would be better to move this check to after we've already
failed on cgroup_clear_css_refs(). That way we can't fail with an
EINTR just because we raced with a signal on the way into rmdir() - we
have to actually hit the EBUSY and try to sleep.
> +       ret = cgroup_call_pre_destroy(cgrp);
> +       if (ret == -EBUSY)
> +               return -EBUSY;

What about other potential error codes? If the subsystem's only
allowed to return 0 or EBUSY, then we should check for that.

Paul

--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org.  For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>