[lkml]   [2012]   [Nov]   [30]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCHSET cgroup/for-3.8] cpuset: decouple cpuset locking from cgroup core
On Fri 30-11-12 12:21:32, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote:
> (2012/11/29 6:34), Tejun Heo wrote:
> > Hello, guys.
> >
> > Depending on cgroup core locking - cgroup_mutex - is messy and makes
> > cgroup prone to locking dependency problems. The current code already
> > has lock dependency loop - memcg nests get_online_cpus() inside
> > cgroup_mutex. cpuset the other way around.
> >
> > Regardless of the locking details, whatever is protecting cgroup has
> > inherently to be something outer to most other locking constructs.
> > cgroup calls into a lot of major subsystems which in turn have to
> > perform subsystem-specific locking. Trying to nest cgroup
> > synchronization inside other locks isn't something which can work
> > well.
> >
> > cgroup now has enough API to allow subsystems to implement their own
> > locking and cgroup_mutex is scheduled to be made private to cgroup
> > core. This patchset makes cpuset implement its own locking instead of
> > relying on cgroup_mutex.
> >
> > cpuset is rather nasty in this respect. Some of it seems to have come
> > from the implementation history - cgroup core grew out of cpuset - but
> > big part stems from cpuset's need to migrate tasks to an ancestor
> > cgroup when an hotunplug event makes a cpuset empty (w/o any cpu or
> > memory).
> >
> > This patchset decouples cpuset locking from cgroup_mutex. After the
> > patchset, cpuset uses cpuset-specific cpuset_mutex instead of
> > cgroup_mutex. This also removes the lockdep warning triggered during
> > cpu offlining (see 0009).
> >
> > Note that this leaves memcg as the only external user of cgroup_mutex.
> > Michal, Kame, can you guys please convert memcg to use its own locking
> > too?
> >
> Hmm. let me quick glance cgroup_lock() is used at
> hierarchy policy change
> kmem_limit
> migration policy change
> swapiness change
> oom control
> Because all aboves takes care of changes in hierarchy,
> Having a new memcg's mutex in ->create() may be a way.
> Ah, hm, Costa is mentioning task-attach. is the task-attach problem in
> memcg ?

Yes because we do not want to leak charges if we race with one of the
above hierarchy operation. Swappiness and oom control are not a big
deal. Same applies to migration policy change.
Those could be solved by using the same memcg lock in the attach hook.
Hierarchy policy change would be a bigger issue because the task is
already linked to the group when the callback is called. Same applies to
kmem_limit. Sorry I didn't have time to look into this deeper so I
cannot offer any solution right now.
Michal Hocko

 \ /
  Last update: 2012-11-30 10:21    [W:0.446 / U:1.768 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site