Re: Q: cgroup: Questions about possible issues in cgroup locking
From: Mandeep Singh Baines <hidden>
Date: 2012-01-04 19:36:33
Also in:
lkml
Oleg Nesterov (oleg-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org) wrote:
On 12/21, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:quoted
On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 11:24:13AM -0800, Mandeep Singh Baines wrote:quoted
If you call exec from a thread other than g, g is now unlinked. So "t != g" will always be true. If you then pthread_create, you now have two threads so "t != __prev" will also always be true. So you now have an infinite loop.Oh you're right. But then we can't use t != t->group_leader because that assumes while_each_thread() started on the leader.Yes, this can't work. Besides, we need more burriers to rely on the ->group_leader check. See http://marc.info/?t=127688987300002
I went through the thread. Were there any other concerns other than requiring that you start with the group_leader and the barrier? You could modify zap_other_threads to start with the group leader by skipping p: if (p == t) continue;
in particular, http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=127714242731448 I think this should work, but then we should do something with the users like zap_threads().
With that patch, won't you potentially miss the exec thread if an exec occurs while you're iterating over the list? Is that OK? Regards, Mandeep
Oleg.