Re: [PATCH 7/8] cgroups: Add a task counter subsystem

[Frederic Weisbecker]

On Tue, Aug 09, 2011 at 07:57:08PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 08/09, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Aug 09, 2011 at 05:11:55PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > >
> > > This doesn't look right or I missed something.
> > >
> > > What if tsk exits in between? Afaics this can happen with both
> > > cgroup_attach_task() and cgroup_attach_proc().
> > >
> > > Let's look at cgroup_attach_task(). Suppose that
> > > task_counter_can_attach_task() succeeds and charges the new cgrp,
> > > Then cgroup_task_migrate() returns -ESRCH. Who will uncharge the
> > > new cgrp?
> > >
> >
> > I may totally be missing something but that looks safe to me.
> > If the task has exited then cgroup_task_migrate() fails then we
> > rollback with ->cancel_attach_task().
> 
> cgroup_attach_task() doesn't call ->cancel_attach_task() ;)

Oops right, that's missing :)
 
> > > cgroup_attach_proc() is different, it calls cgroup_task_migrate()
> > > after ->attach_task(). Cough.
> >
> > That's bad. I need to fix that.
> >
> > So if it returns -ESRCH, I shall not call attach_task() on it
> > but cancel_attach_task().
> 
> Afaics this can't help, or I misunderstood. probably attach_task()
> can check PF_EXITING...

But cgroup_task_migrate() checks that already before migrating
cgroups (checks PF_EXITING under task_lock() so that it's
synchronized against cgroup_exit())

> > > ->attach_task() can be skipped if cgrp == oldcgrp... Probably this
> > > is fine, in this case can_attach_task() shouldn't actually charge.
> >
> > In fact in this case it simply doesn't charge. res_counter_common_ancestor()
> > returns the res_counter for cgrp as a limit and thus charging stops as soon
> > as it starts.
> 
> Yes, this is what I meant. Just it wasn't immediately obvious for me,
> initially I thought this is buggy.
> 
> > @@ -1295,6 +1295,10 @@ static struct task_struct *copy_process(unsigned long clone_flags,
> > > >  	p->group_leader = p;
> > > >  	INIT_LIST_HEAD(&p->thread_group);
> > > >
> > > > +	retval = cgroup_task_counter_fork(p);
> > > > +	if (retval)
> > > > +		goto bad_fork_free_pid;
> > > > +
> > >
> > > Well, imho this is not good. You are adding yet another cgroup hook.
> > > Why you can not reuse cgroup_fork_callbacks() ?
> > >
> > > Yes, it returns void. Can't we chane ->fork() to return the error and
> > > make it boolean?
> >
> > That was my first proposition (minus the rollback with exit() that I forgot)
> > but Paul Menage said that added unnecessary complexity in the fork callbacks.
> 
> Hmm. Yes, this adds some complexity in the fork callbacks.
> 
> But yet another cgroup_task_counter_fork() hook complicates the core kernel
> code. And since I personally do not care about cgroups at all, I think this
> is much worse ;)
> 
> > I would personally prefer that.
> 
> I strongly agree.
> 
> OK. Lets do it this way. Perhaps we can convince Paul later and cleanup.

Fine, I'll rewind to that. I would really prefer it that way.

Thanks!
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/