On 2012/11/1 3:44, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Because ->pre_destroy() could fail and can't be called under
> cgroup_mutex, cgroup destruction did something very ugly.
>
> 1. Grab cgroup_mutex and verify it can be destroyed; fail otherwise.
>
> 2. Release cgroup_mutex and call ->pre_destroy().
>
>
(2012/11/01 4:44), Tejun Heo wrote:
> Because ->pre_destroy() could fail and can't be called under
> cgroup_mutex, cgroup destruction did something very ugly.
>
>1. Grab cgroup_mutex and verify it can be destroyed; fail otherwise.
>
>2. Release cgroup_mutex and call ->pre_destroy().
>
>
(2012/10/31 13:22), Tejun Heo wrote:
> Because ->pre_destroy() could fail and can't be called under
> cgroup_mutex, cgroup destruction did something very ugly.
>
>1. Grab cgroup_mutex and verify it can be destroyed; fail otherwise.
>
>2. Release cgroup_mutex and call ->pre_destroy().
>
>
On Wed 31-10-12 14:27:25, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hey, Michal.
>
> On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 10:23:59PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > + for_each_subsys(cgrp->root, ss)
> > > + if (ss->pre_destroy)
> > > + WARN_ON_ONCE(ss->pre_destroy(cgrp));
> >
> > Do you think that BUG_ON wo
Hey, Michal.
On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 10:23:59PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > + for_each_subsys(cgrp->root, ss)
> > + if (ss->pre_destroy)
> > + WARN_ON_ONCE(ss->pre_destroy(cgrp));
>
> Do you think that BUG_ON would be too harsh?
Yeah, I do think so. In general,
On Wed 31-10-12 12:44:06, Tejun Heo wrote:
[...]
> diff --git a/kernel/cgroup.c b/kernel/cgroup.c
> index f22e3cd..66204a6 100644
> --- a/kernel/cgroup.c
> +++ b/kernel/cgroup.c
[...]
> @@ -4122,13 +4079,30 @@ static int cgroup_rmdir(struct inode *unused_dir,
> struct dentry *dentry)
> }
>
Because ->pre_destroy() could fail and can't be called under
cgroup_mutex, cgroup destruction did something very ugly.
1. Grab cgroup_mutex and verify it can be destroyed; fail otherwise.
2. Release cgroup_mutex and call ->pre_destroy().
3. Re-grab cgroup_mutex and verify it can still be d
Because ->pre_destroy() could fail and can't be called under
cgroup_mutex, cgroup destruction did something very ugly.
1. Grab cgroup_mutex and verify it can be destroyed; fail otherwise.
2. Release cgroup_mutex and call ->pre_destroy().
3. Re-grab cgroup_mutex and verify it can still be d
On Tue 30-10-12 21:22:41, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Because ->pre_destroy() could fail and can't be called under
> cgroup_mutex, cgroup destruction did something very ugly.
You are referring to a commit in the comment but I would rather see it
here.
> 1. Grab cgroup_mutex and verify it can be destroye
On 10/31/2012 08:22 AM, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Because ->pre_destroy() could fail and can't be called under
> cgroup_mutex, cgroup destruction did something very ugly.
>
> 1. Grab cgroup_mutex and verify it can be destroyed; fail otherwise.
>
> 2. Release cgroup_mutex and call ->pre_destroy().
>
Because ->pre_destroy() could fail and can't be called under
cgroup_mutex, cgroup destruction did something very ugly.
1. Grab cgroup_mutex and verify it can be destroyed; fail otherwise.
2. Release cgroup_mutex and call ->pre_destroy().
3. Re-grab cgroup_mutex and verify it can still be d
11 matches
Mail list logo
