Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757443Ab3CTPEH (ORCPT ); Wed, 20 Mar 2013 11:04:07 -0400 Received: from mail-pb0-f45.google.com ([209.85.160.45]:38049 "EHLO mail-pb0-f45.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756079Ab3CTPEC (ORCPT ); Wed, 20 Mar 2013 11:04:02 -0400 Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2013 08:03:51 -0700 From: Tejun Heo To: Li Zefan Cc: Oleg Nesterov , Dave Jones , Linux Kernel , Alexander Viro , cgroups@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH cgroup/for-3.10] cgroup: make cgroup_mutex outer to threadgroup_lock Message-ID: <20130320150351.GW3042@htj.dyndns.org> References: <20130307172545.GA10353@redhat.com> <20130307180139.GD29601@htj.dyndns.org> <20130307180332.GE29601@htj.dyndns.org> <20130307191242.GA18265@redhat.com> <20130307193820.GB3209@htj.dyndns.org> <513A9A67.60909@huawei.com> <20130309032936.GT14556@mtj.dyndns.org> <513AE918.7020704@huawei.com> <20130319220246.GR3042@htj.dyndns.org> <514909A0.4030808@huawei.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <514909A0.4030808@huawei.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1377 Lines: 34 On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 08:58:08AM +0800, Li Zefan wrote: > On 2013/3/20 6:02, Tejun Heo wrote: > > It doesn't make sense to nest cgroup_mutex inside threadgroup_lock > > when it should be outer to most all locks used by all cgroup > > controllers. It was nested inside threadgroup_lock only because some > > controllers were abusing cgroup_mutex inside controllers leading to > > locking order inversion. > > > > cgroup_mutex is no longer abused by controllers and can be put outer > > to threadgroup_lock. Reverse the locking order in > > attach_task_by_pid(). > > > > But the code contrast to the changelog. ;) > > cgroup_mutex is currently outside of threadgroup_lock, and you're making > it nested inside threadgroup_lock in the code. Heh heh, thanks for spotting my idiocy. Yeah, the locking order between the two has been swapped a couple times while writing up the original threadgroup_lock patch and I misremembered how it was at the end and got totally confused when writing this patch. Sorry about that. So, let's leave the locking in cgroup alone. I like cgroup_mutex to be the outer one. Thanks. -- tejun -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/