Re: [PATCH 2/2] cgroup: Walk task list under tasklist_lock incgroup_enable_task_cg_list

[Mandeep Singh Baines]

Frederic Weisbecker (fweisbec@xxxxxxxxx) wrote:
> Walking through the tasklist in cgroup_enable_task_cg_list() inside
> an RCU read side critical section is not enough because:
> 
> - RCU is not (yet) safe against while_each_thread()
> 
> - If we use only RCU, a forking task that has passed cgroup_post_fork()
>   without seeing use_task_css_set_links == 1 is not guaranteed to have
>   its child immediately visible in the tasklist if we walk through it
>   remotely with RCU. In this case it will be missing in its css_set's
>   task list.
> 
> Thus we need to traverse the list (unfortunately) under the
> tasklist_lock. It makes us safe against while_each_thread() and also
> make sure we see all forked task that have been added to the tasklist.
> 
> As a secondary effect, reading and writing use_task_css_set_links are
> now well ordered against tasklist traversing and modification. The new
> layout is:
> 
> CPU 0                                      CPU 1
> 
> use_task_css_set_links = 1                write_lock(tasklist_lock)
> read_lock(tasklist_lock)                  add task to tasklist
> do_each_thread() {                        write_unlock(tasklist_lock)
> 	add thread to css set links       if (use_task_css_set_links)
> } while_each_thread()                         add thread to css set links
> read_unlock(tasklist_lock)
> 
> If CPU 0 traverse the list after the task has been added to the tasklist
> then it is correctly added to the css set links. OTOH if CPU 0 traverse
> the tasklist before the new task had the opportunity to be added to the
> tasklist because it was too early in the fork process, then CPU 1
> catches up and add the task to the css set links after it added the task
> to the tasklist. The right value of use_task_css_set_links is guaranteed
> to be visible from CPU 1 due to the LOCK/UNLOCK implicit barrier properties:
> the read_unlock on CPU 0 makes the write on use_task_css_set_links happening
> and the write_lock on CPU 1 make the read of use_task_css_set_links that comes
> afterward to return the correct value.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@xxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Tejun Heo <tj@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Li Zefan <lizf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Mandeep Singh Baines <msb@xxxxxxxxxxxx>

Reviewed-by: Mandeep Singh Baines <msb@xxxxxxxxxxxx>

Sorry for being late. My feedback is really just comments.

> Cc: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
>  kernel/cgroup.c |   20 ++++++++++++++++++++
>  1 files changed, 20 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/kernel/cgroup.c b/kernel/cgroup.c
> index 6e4eb43..c6877fe 100644
> --- a/kernel/cgroup.c
> +++ b/kernel/cgroup.c
> @@ -2707,6 +2707,14 @@ static void cgroup_enable_task_cg_lists(void)
>  	struct task_struct *p, *g;
>  	write_lock(&css_set_lock);

You might want to re-test use_task_css_set_links once you have the lock
in order to avoid an unnecessary do_each_thread()/while_each_thread() in
case you race between reading the value and entering the loop. This is
a potential optimization in a rare case so maybe not worth the LOC.

>  	use_task_css_set_links = 1;
> +	/*
> +	 * We need tasklist_lock because RCU is not safe against
> +	 * while_each_thread(). Besides, a forking task that has passed
> +	 * cgroup_post_fork() without seeing use_task_css_set_links = 1
> +	 * is not guaranteed to have its child immediately visible in the
> +	 * tasklist if we walk through it with RCU.
> +	 */

Maybe add TODO to remove the lock once do_each_thread()/while_each_thread()
is made rcu safe. On a large system, it could take a while to iterate
over every thread in the system. Thats a long time to hold a spinlock.
But it only happens once so probably not that big a deal.

> +	read_lock(&tasklist_lock);
>  	do_each_thread(g, p) {
>  		task_lock(p);
>  		/*
> @@ -2718,6 +2726,7 @@ static void cgroup_enable_task_cg_lists(void)
>  			list_add(&p->cg_list, &p->cgroups->tasks);
>  		task_unlock(p);
>  	} while_each_thread(g, p);
> +	read_unlock(&tasklist_lock);
>  	write_unlock(&css_set_lock);
>  }
>  
> @@ -4522,6 +4531,17 @@ void cgroup_fork_callbacks(struct task_struct *child)
>   */
>  void cgroup_post_fork(struct task_struct *child)
>  {
> +	/*
> +	 * use_task_css_set_links is set to 1 before we walk the tasklist
> +	 * under the tasklist_lock and we read it here after we added the child
> +	 * to the tasklist under the tasklist_lock as well. If the child wasn't
> +	 * yet in the tasklist when we walked through it from
> +	 * cgroup_enable_task_cg_lists(), then use_task_css_set_links value
> +	 * should be visible now due to the paired locking and barriers implied
> +	 * by LOCK/UNLOCK: it is written before the tasklist_lock unlock
> +	 * in cgroup_enable_task_cg_lists() and read here after the tasklist_lock
> +	 * lock on fork.
> +	 */
>  	if (use_task_css_set_links) {
>  		write_lock(&css_set_lock);
>  		if (list_empty(&child->cg_list)) {
> -- 
> 1.7.5.4
> 
--
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/