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 S933555Ab2AKQOB (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Wed, 11 Jan 2012 11:14:01 -0500
Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:3717 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com"
	rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id S1751001Ab2AKQN5 (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Wed, 11 Jan 2012 11:13:57 -0500
Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2012 17:07:30 +0100
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
To: Mandeep Singh Baines <msb@chromium.org>
Cc: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com>, Li Zefan <lizf@cn.fujitsu.com>,
        Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Containers <containers@lists.linux-foundation.org>,
        Cgroups <cgroups@vger.kernel.org>,
        KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>,
        Paul Menage <paul@paulmenage.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: Q: cgroup: Questions about possible issues in cgroup locking
Message-ID: <20120111160730.GA24556@redhat.com>
References: <20111221130848.GA19679@redhat.com> <20111221175632.GF17668@somewhere> <20111221190102.GE13529@google.com> <20111221190817.GI17668@somewhere> <20111221192413.GF13529@google.com> <20111221200422.GJ17668@somewhere> <20111222153004.GA30522@redhat.com> <20120104193614.GF9511@google.com> <20120106152356.GA23995@redhat.com> <20120106182535.GJ9511@google.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20120106182535.GJ9511@google.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 01/06, Mandeep Singh Baines wrote:
>
> Oleg Nesterov (oleg@redhat.com) wrote:
> >
> > > > 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().
> > > >
> > >
> > > With that patch, won't you potentially miss the exec thread if an exec
> > > occurs while you're iterating over the list? Is that OK?
> >
> > Of course it is not OK ;) Note the "we should do something with" above.
> >
>
> So requirements should be something like this:

(I assume, you mean the lockless case)

> * Any task alive for the duration of the iteration MUST be visited
> * No task should be visited more than once
> * Any task born or exiting after starting the iteration MAY be skipped
> * You can start at any task in the thread group

Well yes, but it is not easy to exactly define what after/before
means in this case.

> Would something like this work:
>
> #define while_each_thread(g, t, o) \
> 	while (t->group_leader == o && (t = next_thread(t)) != g)
>
> Where o should have the value of g->group_leader.

I don't understand how this helps... and how this can work even
ignoring the barriers.

OK, we have the main thream M and the sub-thread T, we are doing

	do {
		do_something(t);
	} while_each_thread(M, t, M);

why we can't miss T if it does exec?

Oleg.