Re: [PATCH 08/16] freezer: use dedicated lock instead oftask_lock() + memory barrier

[Oleg Nesterov]

On 08/19, Tejun Heo wrote:
>
> it's by no means a
> hot path and the priority is staying unintrusive and safe.  This patch
> makes it simply use a dedicated lock

Agreed. but could you explain why it should be irq-safe? This is not
clear from the changelog.

> +	if (!(current->flags & PF_NOFREEZE))
> +		current->flags |= PF_FROZEN;

it is not clear why do we check PF_NOFREEZE... but OK, iiuc you
remove this check later anyway.



Off-topic, but fake_signal_wake_up() is not safe if the caller
try_to_freeze_cgroup(). Unlike try_to_freeze_tasks() (which holds
tasklist) we can race with the exiting thread, ->sighand can be
NULL.

Oleg.

--
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/