Date: Thu, 14 May 2015 11:17:42 -0400
From: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
To: Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@gmail.com>
Cc: lizefan@huawei.com, cgroups@vger.kernel.org, mingo@redhat.com,
        peterz@infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] sched, cgroup: reorganize threadgroup locking
Message-ID: <20150514151742.GJ11388@htj.duckdns.org>
References: <1431549318-16756-1-git-send-email-tj@kernel.org>
 <1431549318-16756-2-git-send-email-tj@kernel.org>
 <20150514010913.GA4441@swordfish>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20150514010913.GA4441@swordfish>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 804
Lines: 25

Hello, Sergey.

On Thu, May 14, 2015 at 10:09:13AM +0900, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> > +static inline void threadgroup_change_begin(struct task_struct *tsk)
> >  {
> > -	down_write(&tsk->signal->group_rwsem);
> > +	might_sleep();
> 
> I think cgroup_threadgroup_change_begin()->down_read() already does
> might_sleep() check.

Sure but it's a layering thing.  threadgroup_change_begin() should be
called from a blockable context whether the hook users actually make
use of it or not.  e.g. We want might_sleep() even when
!CONFIG_CGROUP.

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/