From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1753549Ab1IBRCh (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Fri, 2 Sep 2011 13:02:37 -0400
Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:55332 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com"
	rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id S1753497Ab1IBRCh (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Fri, 2 Sep 2011 13:02:37 -0400
Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2011 18:58:39 +0200
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
To: Matt Helsley <matthltc@us.ibm.com>
Cc: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>, "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@sisk.pl>,
        Paul Menage <paul@paulmenage.org>,
        containers@lists.linux-foundation.org,
        linux-pm@lists.linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH pm-freezer 1/4] cgroup_freezer: fix freezer->state
	setting bug in freezer_change_state()
Message-ID: <20110902165839.GA7478@redhat.com>
References: <20110831102100.GA2828@mtj.dyndns.org> <20110902004231.GF1919@count0.beaverton.ibm.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20110902004231.GF1919@count0.beaverton.ibm.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On 09/01, Matt Helsley wrote:
>
> On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 12:21:07PM +0200, Tejun Heo wrote:
> >  	case CGROUP_FROZEN:
> > -		atomic_inc(&system_freezing_cnt);
> > -		retval = try_to_freeze_cgroup(cgroup, freezer);
> > +		if (freezer->state == CGROUP_THAWED) {
> > +			freezer->state = CGROUP_FREEZING;
> > +			atomic_inc(&system_freezing_cnt);
> > +			retval = try_to_freeze_cgroup(cgroup, freezer);
>
> This still doesn't look quite right. If the cgroup is FREEZING it should
> also call try_to_freeze_cgroup(). I think this is what's needed:
>
> 		if (freezer->state == CGROUP_THAWED)
> 			atomic_inc(&system_freezing_cnt);
> 		freezer->state = CGROUP_FREEZING;
> 		retval = try_to_freeze_cgroup(cgroup, freezer);

This is what I mentioned before, to me this looks like a win.

Why do we need try_to_freeze_cgroup() in this case? "for safety"
could actually mean "hide the bug" ;)


But I agree either way. Rafael, I think 1-4 are fine, but I think
we need the simple 5/4, will send in a minute...

Oleg.