From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Tejun Heo Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] don't take cgroup_mutex in destroy() Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2012 15:57:04 -0700 Message-ID: <20120419225704.GE10553@google.com> References: <1334875758-20939-1-git-send-email-glommer@parallels.com> <1334875758-20939-3-git-send-email-glommer@parallels.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: netdev-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, cgroups-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, Li Zefan , kamezawa.hiroyu-+CUm20s59erQFUHtdCDX3A@public.gmane.org, David Miller , devel-GEFAQzZX7r8dnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org, Vivek Goyal To: Glauber Costa Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1334875758-20939-3-git-send-email-glommer-bzQdu9zFT3WakBO8gow8eQ@public.gmane.org> Sender: cgroups-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 07:49:17PM -0300, Glauber Costa wrote: > Most of the destroy functions are only doing very simple things > like freeing memory. > > The ones who goes through lists and such, already use its own > locking for those. > > * The cgroup itself won't go away until we free it, (after destroy) > * The parent won't go away because we hold a reference count > * There are no more tasks in the cgroup, and the cgroup is declared > dead (cgroup_is_removed() == true) > > For the blk-cgroup and the cpusets, I got the impression that the mutex > is still necessary. > > For those, I grabbed it from within the destroy function itself. > > If the maintainer for those subsystems consider it safe to remove > it, we can discuss it separately. I really don't like cgroup_lock() usage spreading more. It's something which should be contained in cgroup.c proper. I looked at the existing users a while ago and they seemed to be compensating deficencies in API, so, if at all possible, let's not spread the disease. Thanks. -- tejun