lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2013]   [Mar]   [19]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH cgroup/for-3.10] cgroup: make cgroup_mutex outer to threadgroup_lock
On 2013/3/20 6:02, Tejun Heo wrote:
> It doesn't make sense to nest cgroup_mutex inside threadgroup_lock
> when it should be outer to most all locks used by all cgroup
> controllers. It was nested inside threadgroup_lock only because some
> controllers were abusing cgroup_mutex inside controllers leading to
> locking order inversion.
>
> cgroup_mutex is no longer abused by controllers and can be put outer
> to threadgroup_lock. Reverse the locking order in
> attach_task_by_pid().
>

But the code contrast to the changelog. ;)

cgroup_mutex is currently outside of threadgroup_lock, and you're making
it nested inside threadgroup_lock in the code.

> Signed-off-by: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
> Cc: Li Zefan <lizefan@huawei.com>
> ---
> Li, can you please ack this?
>
> Thanks!
>
> kernel/cgroup.c | 21 ++++++++-------------
> 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/cgroup.c b/kernel/cgroup.c
> index 04fa2ab..24106b8 100644
> --- a/kernel/cgroup.c
> +++ b/kernel/cgroup.c
> @@ -2134,17 +2134,13 @@ static int attach_task_by_pid(struct cgroup *cgrp, u64 pid, bool threadgroup)
> const struct cred *cred = current_cred(), *tcred;
> int ret;
>
> - if (!cgroup_lock_live_group(cgrp))
> - return -ENODEV;
> -
> retry_find_task:
> rcu_read_lock();
> if (pid) {
> tsk = find_task_by_vpid(pid);
> if (!tsk) {
> rcu_read_unlock();
> - ret= -ESRCH;
> - goto out_unlock_cgroup;
> + return -ESRCH;
> }
> /*
> * even if we're attaching all tasks in the thread group, we
> @@ -2155,8 +2151,7 @@ retry_find_task:
> !uid_eq(cred->euid, tcred->uid) &&
> !uid_eq(cred->euid, tcred->suid)) {
> rcu_read_unlock();
> - ret = -EACCES;
> - goto out_unlock_cgroup;
> + return -EACCES;
> }
> } else
> tsk = current;
> @@ -2170,9 +2165,8 @@ retry_find_task:
> * with no rt_runtime allocated. Just say no.
> */
> if (tsk == kthreadd_task || (tsk->flags & PF_THREAD_BOUND)) {
> - ret = -EINVAL;
> rcu_read_unlock();
> - goto out_unlock_cgroup;
> + return -EINVAL;
> }
>
> get_task_struct(tsk);
> @@ -2194,13 +2188,14 @@ retry_find_task:
> }
> }
>
> - ret = cgroup_attach_task(cgrp, tsk, threadgroup);
> + ret = -ENODEV;
> + if (cgroup_lock_live_group(cgrp)) {
> + ret = cgroup_attach_task(cgrp, tsk, threadgroup);
> + cgroup_unlock();
> + }
>
> threadgroup_unlock(tsk);
> -
> put_task_struct(tsk);
> -out_unlock_cgroup:
> - cgroup_unlock();
> return ret;
> }
>
> .
>



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2013-03-20 02:21    [W:0.117 / U:0.412 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site