Re: [RFC/RFT PATCH v3] sched: automated per tty task groups

[Mike Galbraith]

On Fri, 2010-11-12 at 19:12 +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 11/11, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, 2010-11-11 at 21:27 +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> >
> > > But the real problem is that copy_process() can fail after that,
> > > and in this case we have the unbalanced kref_get().
> >
> > Memory leak, will fix.
> >
> > > > +++ linux-2.6.36.git/kernel/exit.c
> > > > @@ -174,6 +174,7 @@ repeat:
> > > >  	write_lock_irq(&tasklist_lock);
> > > >  	tracehook_finish_release_task(p);
> > > >  	__exit_signal(p);
> > > > +	sched_autogroup_exit(p);
> > >
> > > This doesn't look right. Note that "p" can run/sleep after that
> > > (or in parallel), set_task_rq() can use the freed ->autogroup.
> >
> > So avoiding refcounting rcu released task_group backfired.  Crud.
> 
> Just in case, the lock order may be wrong. sched_autogroup_exit()
> takes task_group_lock under write_lock(tasklist), while
> sched_autogroup_handler() takes them in reverse order.

Bug self destructs when global classifier goes away.

> I am not sure, but perhaps this can be simpler?
> wake_up_new_task() does autogroup_fork(), and do_exit() does
> sched_autogroup_exit() before the last schedule. Possible?

That's what I was going to do.  That said, I couldn't have had the
problem if I'd tied final put directly to life of container, and am
thinking I should do that instead when I go back to p->signal.

> Very basic question. Currently sched_autogroup_create_attach()
> has the only caller, __proc_set_tty(). It is a bit strange that
> signal->tty change is process-wide, but sched_autogroup_create_attach()
> move the single thread, the caller. What about other threads in
> this thread group? The same for proc_clear_tty().

Yeah, I really should (will) move all on the spot, though it doesn't
seem to matter in general practice, forks afterward land in the right
bucket.  With per tty or p->signal, migration will pick up stragglers
lazily.. unless they're pinned.

> > +void sched_autogroup_create_attach(struct task_struct *p)
> > +{
> > +       autogroup_move_task(p, autogroup_create());
> > +
> > +       /*
> > +        * Correct freshly allocated group's refcount.
> > + 	   * Move takes a reference on destination, but
> > +        * create already initialized refcount to 1.
> > +        */
> > + 	if (p->autogroup != &autogroup_default)
> > +               autogroup_kref_put(p->autogroup);
> > +}
> 
> OK, but I don't understand "p->autogroup != &autogroup_default"
> check. This is true if autogroup_create() succeeds. Otherwise
> autogroup_create() does autogroup_kref_get(autogroup_default),
> doesn't this mean we need unconditional _put ?

D'oh, target fixation :)  Thanks.

> And can't resist, minor cosmetic nit,
> 
> >  static inline struct task_group *task_group(struct task_struct *p)
> >  {
> > +       struct task_group *tg;
> >         struct cgroup_subsys_state *css;
> >
> >         css = task_subsys_state_check(p, cpu_cgroup_subsys_id,
> >                         lockdep_is_held(&task_rq(p)->lock));
> > -       return container_of(css, struct task_group, css);
> > +       tg = container_of(css, struct task_group, css);
> > +
> > +       autogroup_task_group(p, &tg);
> 
> Fell free to ignore, but imho
> 
> 	return autogroup_task_group(p, tg);
> 
> looks a bit better. Why autogroup_task_group() returns its
> result via pointer?

No particularly good reason, I'll do the cosmetic change.

	Thanks,

	-Mike

--
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/