Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2013 14:55:39 +0200
From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.cz>
To: Glauber Costa <glommer@gmail.com>
Cc: lizefan@huawei.com, containers@lists.linux-foundation.org,
        cgroups@vger.kernel.org, koverstreet@google.com,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, cl@linux-foundation.org,
        Mike Snitzer <snitzer@redhat.com>, Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@redhat.com>,
        "Alasdair G. Kergon" <agk@redhat.com>, Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>,
        Mikulas Patocka <mpatocka@redhat.com>,
        Glauber Costa <glommer@gmail.com>, Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 11/11] cgroup: use percpu refcnt for cgroup_subsys_states
Message-ID: <20130614125539.GC10084@dhcp22.suse.cz>
References: <1371096298-24402-1-git-send-email-tj@kernel.org>
 <1371096298-24402-12-git-send-email-tj@kernel.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <1371096298-24402-12-git-send-email-tj@kernel.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1831
Lines: 42

On Wed 12-06-13 21:04:58, Tejun Heo wrote:
[...]
> +/**
> + * cgroup_destroy_locked - the first stage of cgroup destruction
> + * @cgrp: cgroup to be destroyed
> + *
> + * css's make use of percpu refcnts whose killing latency shouldn't be
> + * exposed to userland and are RCU protected.  Also, cgroup core needs to
> + * guarantee that css_tryget() won't succeed by the time ->css_offline() is
> + * invoked.  To satisfy all the requirements, destruction is implemented in
> + * the following two steps.
> + *
> + * s1. Verify @cgrp can be destroyed and mark it dying.  Remove all
> + *     userland visible parts and start killing the percpu refcnts of
> + *     css's.  Set up so that the next stage will be kicked off once all
> + *     the percpu refcnts are confirmed to be killed.
> + *
> + * s2. Invoke ->css_offline(), mark the cgroup dead and proceed with the
> + *     rest of destruction.  Once all cgroup references are gone, the
> + *     cgroup is RCU-freed.
> + *
> + * This function implements s1.  After this step, @cgrp is gone as far as
> + * the userland is concerned and a new cgroup with the same name may be
> + * created.  As cgroup doesn't care about the names internally, this
> + * doesn't cause any problem.

Glauber is this asumption correct for kmem caches naming scheme?
I guess it should, but I would rather be sure this won't blow up later
specially when caches might live longer than css_offline.

> + */
>  static int cgroup_destroy_locked(struct cgroup *cgrp)
>  	__releases(&cgroup_mutex) __acquires(&cgroup_mutex)
>  {
-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
--
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/