Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S933870Ab0FRRh3 (ORCPT ); Fri, 18 Jun 2010 13:37:29 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:6271 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S933739Ab0FRRh2 (ORCPT ); Fri, 18 Jun 2010 13:37:28 -0400 Date: Fri, 18 Jun 2010 18:27:34 +0200 From: Oleg Nesterov To: "Eric W. Biederman" , Pavel Emelyanov , Andrew Morton , Pavel Emelyanov , Linux Containers , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Louis Rilling Subject: Re: [PATCH] procfs: Do not release pid_ns->proc_mnt too early Message-ID: <20100618162734.GB7404@redhat.com> References: <1276706068-18567-1-git-send-email-louis.rilling@kerlabs.com> <4C19F0A3.2050707@parallels.com> <20100617213638.GB4182@redhat.com> <20100618082738.GE16877@hawkmoon.kerlabs.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20100618082738.GE16877@hawkmoon.kerlabs.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1598 Lines: 41 On 06/18, Louis Rilling wrote: > > On 17/06/10 23:36 +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote: > > On 06/17, Eric W. Biederman wrote: > > > > > > The task->children isn't changed until __unhash_process() which runs > > > after flush_proc_task(). > > > > Yes. But this is only the current implementation detail. > > It would be nice to cleanup the code so that EXIT_DEAD tasks are > > never sit in ->children list. > > > > > So we should be able to come up with > > > a variant of do_wait() that zap_pid_ns_processes can use that does > > > what we need. > > > > See above... > > > > Even if we modify do_wait() or add the new variant, how the caller > > can wait for EXIT_DEAD tasks? I don't think we want to modify > > release_task() to do __wake_up_parent() or something similar. > > Indeed, I was thinking about calling __wake_up_parent() from release_task() > once parent->children becomes empty. > > Not sure about the performance impact though. Maybe some WAIT_NO_CHILDREN flag > in parent->signal could limit it. But if EXIT_DEAD children are removed from > ->children before release_task(), I'm afraid that this becomes impossible. Thinking more, even the current do_wait() from zap_pid_ns_processes() is not really good. Suppose that some none-init thread is ptraced, then zap_pid_ns_processes() will hange until the tracer does do_wait() or exits. Oleg. -- 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/