Re: [PATCH] hugetlb/cgroup: Simplify pre_destroy callback

From: Aneesh Kumar K.V
Date: Thu Jul 19 2012 - 07:26:22 EST

Kamezawa Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:

>>>>> We test RES_USAGE before taking hugetlb_lock. What prevents some other
>>>>> thread from increasing RES_USAGE after that test?
>>>>> After walking the list we test RES_USAGE after dropping hugetlb_lock.
>>>>> What prevents another thread from incrementing RES_USAGE before that
>>>>> test, triggering the BUG?
>>>> IIUC core cgroup will prevent a new task getting added to the cgroup
>>>> when we are in pre_destroy. Since we already check that the cgroup doesn't
>>>> have any task, the RES_USAGE cannot increase in pre_destroy.
>>> You're wrong here. We release cgroup_lock before calling pre_destroy and retrieve
>>> the lock after that, so a task can be attached to the cgroup in this interval.
>> But that means rmdir can be racy right ? What happens if the task got
>> added, allocated few pages and then moved out ? We still would have task
>> count 0 but few pages, which we missed to to move to parent cgroup.
> That's a problem even if it's verrrry unlikely.
> I'd like to look into it and fix the race in cgroup layer.
> But I'm sorry I'm a bit busy in these days...

How about moving that mutex_unlock(&cgroup_mutex) to memcg callback ? That
can be a patch for 3.5 ?


To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at