Re: [PATCH cgroup/for-3.7-fixes 1/2] Revert "cgroup: Removetask_lock() from cgroup_post_fork()"

From: Tejun Heo
Date: Sat Oct 20 2012 - 18:37:06 EST

Hello, Frederic.

On Sat, Oct 20, 2012 at 02:21:43PM -0400, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> CPU 0
> CPU 1
> cgroup_task_migrate {
> task_lock(p)
> rcu_assign_pointer(tsk->cgroups, newcg);
> task_unlock(tsk);
> write_lock(&css_set_lock);
> if (!list_empty(&tsk->cg_list))
> list_move(&tsk->cg_list, &newcg->tasks);
> write_unlock(&css_set_lock);
> write_lock(&css_set_lock);
> put_css_set(oldcg);
> list_add(&child->cg_list, &child->cgroups->tasks); (1)

Man, that's confusing. :)

> On (1), child->cgroups should have the value of newcg and not oldcg
> due to the memory ordering implied by the locking of css_set_lock. Now
> I can't guarantee that because I'm no memory ordering expert. And even
> if it's safe, it's so very non obvious that I now agree with you:
> let's revert the patch and restart with a better base by gathering
> all the cgroup fork code in the current cgroup_post_fork place.

Aye aye, let's move everything to cgroup_post_fork() and then we don't
have to worry about grabbing task_lock multiple times.


To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at