[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 11/30/2012 07:21 AM, 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 ?

We disallow the kmem limit to be set if a task already exists in the
cgroup. So we can't allow a new task to attach if we are setting the limit.

 \ /
  Last update: 2012-11-30 10:41    [W:0.283 / U:3.928 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site