Re: [PATCH cgroup/for-3.7-fixes 1/2] Revert "cgroup: Removetask_lock() from cgroup_post_fork()"
From: Frederic Weisbecker
Date: Fri Oct 19 2012 - 15:44:45 EST
2012/10/19 Tejun Heo <tj@xxxxxxxxxx>:
> On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 09:35:26AM -0400, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
>> 2012/10/18 Tejun Heo <tj@xxxxxxxxxx>:
>> > From d935a5d6832a264ce52f4257e176f4f96cbaf048 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
>> > From: Tejun Heo <tj@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> > Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2012 17:40:30 -0700
>> > This reverts commit 7e3aa30ac8c904a706518b725c451bb486daaae9.
>> > The commit incorrectly assumed that fork path always performed
>> > threadgroup_change_begin/end() and depended on that for
>> > synchronization against task exit and cgroup migration paths instead
>> > of explicitly grabbing task_lock().
>> > threadgroup_change is not locked when forking a new process (as
>> > opposed to a new thread in the same process) and even if it were it
>> > wouldn't be effective as different processes use different threadgroup
>> > locks.
>> > Revert the incorrect optimization.
>> Ok but there is still no good reason to task_lock() there. But the
>> comment is indeed wrong, how about fixing it instead? I can send you
>> a patch for that.
> For -stable, I think it's better to revert. If you want to remove
> task_lock, let's do it for 3.8.
I don't think that a wrong comment justifies a patch to stable.
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/