lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2008]   [Nov]   [11]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] [BUGFIX]cgroup: fix potential deadlock in pre_destroy.
On Wed, 12 Nov 2008 10:23:55 +0530
Balbir Singh <balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:

> KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote:
> > Balbir, Paul, Li, How about this ?
> > =
> > As Balbir pointed out, memcg's pre_destroy handler has potential deadlock.
> >
> > It has following lock sequence.
> >
> > cgroup_mutex (cgroup_rmdir)
> > -> pre_destroy
> > -> mem_cgroup_pre_destroy
> > -> force_empty
> > -> lru_add_drain_all->
> > -> schedule_work_on_all_cpus
> > -> get_online_cpus -> cpuhotplug.lock.
> >
> > But, cpuset has following.
> > cpu_hotplug.lock (call notifier)
> > -> cgroup_mutex. (within notifier)
> >
> > Then, this lock sequence should be fixed.
> >
> > Considering how pre_destroy works, it's not necessary to holding
> > cgroup_mutex() while calling it.
> >
> > As side effect, we don't have to wait at this mutex while memcg's force_empty
> > works.(it can be long when there are tons of pages.)
> >
> > Note: memcg is an only user of pre_destroy, now.
> >
>
> I thought about this and it seems promising. My concern is that with
> cgroup_mutex given, the state of cgroup within pre-destroy will be
> unpredictable. I suspect, if pre-destory really needs cgroup_mutex, we can hold
> it within pre-destroy.
>
I agree.

> BTW, your last check, does not seem right
>
> + if (atomic_read(&cgrp->count)
> + || list_empty(&cgrp->children)
>
> Why should list_empty() result in EBUSY, shouldn't it be !list_empty()?
>
> + || cgroup_has_css_refs(cgrp)) {
>
Oh, my bad...

will fix soon.

Thanks,
-Kame






\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2008-11-12 05:59    [W:0.215 / U:0.196 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site