Matt Helsley wrote:
> On Thu, 2008-07-10 at 09:42 +0900, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote:
>> On Wed, 09 Jul 2008 14:58:43 -0700
>> Matt Helsley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, 2008-07-08 at 13:07 -0700, Paul Menage wrote:
>>>> On Tue, Jul 8, 2008 at 1:06 PM, Paul Menage <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, Jul 8, 2008 at 12:39 PM, Matt Helsley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>>>> One is to try and disallow users from moving frozen tasks. That doesn't
>>>>>> seem like a good approach since it would require a new cgroups interface
>>>>>> "can_detach()".
>>>>> Detaching from the old cgroup happens at the same time as attaching to
>>>>> the new cgroup, so can_attach() would work here.
>>> Update: I've made a patch implementing this. However it might be better
>>> to just modify attach() to thaw the moving task rather than disallow
>>> moving the frozen task. Serge, Cedric, Kame-san, do you have any
>>> thoughts on which is more useful and/or intuitive?
>>>
>> Thank you for explanation in previous mail.
>>
>> Hmm, just thawing seems atractive but it will confuse people (I think).
>>
>> I think some kind of process-group is freezed by this freezer and "moving
>> freezed task" is wrong(unexpected) operation in general.  And there will
>> be no demand to do that from users.
>> I think just taking "moving freezed task" as error-operation and returning
>> -EBUSY is better.
> 
> Kame-san,
> 
>       I've been working on changes to the can_attach() code so it was pretty
> easy to try this out.
> 
>       Don't let frozen tasks or cgroups change. This means frozen tasks can't
> leave their current cgroup for another cgroup. It also means that tasks
> cannot be added to or removed from a cgroup in the FROZEN state. We
> enforce these rules by checking for frozen tasks and cgroups in the
> can_attach() function.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Matt Helsley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> ---
> Builds, boots, passes testing against 2.6.26-rc5-mm2
> 
>  kernel/cgroup_freezer.c |   42 +++++++++++++++++++++++++-----------------
>  1 file changed, 25 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-)
> 
> Index: linux-2.6.26-rc5-mm2/kernel/cgroup_freezer.c
> ===================================================================
> --- linux-2.6.26-rc5-mm2.orig/kernel/cgroup_freezer.c
> +++ linux-2.6.26-rc5-mm2/kernel/cgroup_freezer.c
> @@ -89,26 +89,43 @@ static void freezer_destroy(struct cgrou
>                           struct cgroup *cgroup)
>  {
>       kfree(cgroup_freezer(cgroup));
>  }
>  
> +/* Task is frozen or will freeze immediately when next it gets woken */
> +static bool is_task_frozen_enough(struct task_struct *task)
> +{
> +     return (frozen(task) || (task_is_stopped_or_traced(task) && 
> freezing(task)));
> +}
>  
> +/*
> + * The call to cgroup_lock() in the freezer.state write method prevents
> + * a write to that file racing against an attach, and hence the
> + * can_attach() result will remain valid until the attach completes.
> + */
>  static int freezer_can_attach(struct cgroup_subsys *ss,
>                             struct cgroup *new_cgroup,
>                             struct task_struct *task)
>  {
>       struct freezer *freezer;
> -     int retval = 0;
> +     int retval;
> +
> +     /* Anything frozen can't move or be moved to/from */
> +
> +     if (is_task_frozen_enough(task))
> +             return -EBUSY;
>  

cgroup_lock() can prevent the state change of old_cgroup and new_cgroup, but
will the following racy happen ?
   1                                     2
can_attach(tsk)
  is_task_frozen_enough(tsk) == false
                                         freeze_task(tsk)
attach(tsk)

i.e., will is_task_frozen_enough(tsk) remain valid through can_attach() and 
attach()?

> -     /*
> -      * The call to cgroup_lock() in the freezer.state write method prevents
> -      * a write to that file racing against an attach, and hence the
> -      * can_attach() result will remain valid until the attach completes.
> -      */
>       freezer = cgroup_freezer(new_cgroup);
>       if (freezer->state == STATE_FROZEN)
> +             return -EBUSY;
> +
> +     retval = 0;
> +     task_lock(task);
> +     freezer = task_freezer(task);
> +     if (freezer->state == STATE_FROZEN)
>               retval = -EBUSY;
> +     task_unlock(task);
>       return retval;
>  }
>  
>  static void freezer_fork(struct cgroup_subsys *ss, struct task_struct *task)
>  {
> @@ -139,16 +156,11 @@ static void check_if_frozen(struct cgrou
>       unsigned int nfrozen = 0, ntotal = 0;
>  
>       cgroup_iter_start(cgroup, &it);
>       while ((task = cgroup_iter_next(cgroup, &it))) {
>               ntotal++;
> -             /*
> -              * Task is frozen or will freeze immediately when next it gets
> -              * woken
> -              */
> -             if (frozen(task) ||
> -                 (task_is_stopped_or_traced(task) && freezing(task)))
> +             if (is_task_frozen_enough(task))
>                       nfrozen++;
>       }
>  
>       /*
>        * Transition to FROZEN when no new tasks can be added ensures
> @@ -195,15 +207,11 @@ static int try_to_freeze_cgroup(struct c
>       freezer->state = STATE_FREEZING;
>       cgroup_iter_start(cgroup, &it);
>       while ((task = cgroup_iter_next(cgroup, &it))) {
>               if (!freeze_task(task, true))
>                       continue;
> -             if (task_is_stopped_or_traced(task) && freezing(task))
> -                     /*
> -                      * The freeze flag is set so these tasks will
> -                      * immediately go into the fridge upon waking.
> -                      */
> +             if (is_task_frozen_enough(task))
>                       continue;
>               if (!freezing(task) && !freezer_should_skip(task))
>                       num_cant_freeze_now++;
>       }
>       cgroup_iter_end(cgroup, &it);
> 
_______________________________________________
Containers mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers

_______________________________________________
Devel mailing list
Devel@openvz.org
https://openvz.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

Reply via email to