From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from psmtp.com (na3sys010amx139.postini.com [74.125.245.139]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 4169F6B006E for ; Fri, 30 Nov 2012 04:01:03 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <50B875B4.2020507@parallels.com> Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2012 13:00:36 +0400 From: Glauber Costa MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [PATCHSET cgroup/for-3.8] cpuset: decouple cpuset locking from cgroup core References: <1354138460-19286-1-git-send-email-tj@kernel.org> <50B8263C.7060908@jp.fujitsu.com> In-Reply-To: <50B8263C.7060908@jp.fujitsu.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-2022-JP" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Kamezawa Hiroyuki Cc: Tejun Heo , lizefan@huawei.com, paul@paulmenage.org, containers@lists.linux-foundation.org, cgroups@vger.kernel.org, peterz@infradead.org, mhocko@suse.cz, bsingharora@gmail.com, hannes@cmpxchg.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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 see....at 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. -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org