OpenVZ Forum


Home » Mailing lists » Devel » [PATCH 00/29] Rename Containers to Control Groups
[PATCH 08/29] task containersv11 shared container subsystem group arrays avoid lockdep warning [message #20070 is a reply to message #20064] Tue, 11 September 2007 19:52 Go to previous messageGo to previous message
Paul Menage is currently offline  Paul Menage
Messages: 642
Registered: September 2006
Senior Member
From: Paul Menage <menage@google.com>

I think this is the right way to handle the lockdep false-positive in the
current cgroups patches, but I'm not that familiar with lockdep so any
suggestions for a better approach are welcomed.

In order to avoid a false-positive lockdep warning, we lock the root inode
of a new filesystem mount prior to taking cgroup_mutex, to preserve the
invariant that cgroup_mutex nests inside inode->i_mutex.  In order to
prevent a lockdep false positive when locking i_mutex on a newly-created
cgroup directory inode we use mutex_lock_nested(), with a nesting level
of I_MUTEX_CHILD since the new inode will ultimately be a child directory
of the parent whose i_mutex is nested outside of cgroup_mutex.

Signed-off-by: Paul Menage <menage@google.com>
Acked-by: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
---

 kernel/cgroup.c |   17 +++++++----------
 1 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)

diff -puN kernel/cgroup.c~task-cgroupsv11-shared-cgroup-subsystem-group-arrays-avoid-lockdep-warning kernel/cgroup.c
--- a/kernel/cgroup.c~task-cgroupsv11-shared-cgroup-subsystem-group-arrays-avoid-lockdep-warning
+++ a/kernel/cgroup.c
@@ -867,13 +867,16 @@ static int cgroup_get_sb(struct file_
 	} else {
 		/* New superblock */
 		struct cgroup *cont = &root->top_cgroup;
+		struct inode *inode;
 
 		BUG_ON(sb->s_root != NULL);
 
 		ret = cgroup_get_rootdir(sb);
 		if (ret)
 			goto drop_new_super;
+		inode = sb->s_root->d_inode;
 
+		mutex_lock(&inode->i_mutex);
 		mutex_lock(&cgroup_mutex);
 
 		/*
@@ -886,12 +889,14 @@ static int cgroup_get_sb(struct file_
 		ret = allocate_cg_links(css_set_count, &tmp_cg_links);
 		if (ret) {
 			mutex_unlock(&cgroup_mutex);
+			mutex_unlock(&inode->i_mutex);
 			goto drop_new_super;
 		}
 
 		ret = rebind_subsystems(root, root->subsys_bits);
 		if (ret == -EBUSY) {
 			mutex_unlock(&cgroup_mutex);
+			mutex_unlock(&inode->i_mutex);
 			goto drop_new_super;
 		}
 
@@ -931,16 +936,8 @@ static int cgroup_get_sb(struct file_
 		BUG_ON(!list_empty(&cont->children));
 		BUG_ON(root->number_of_cgroups != 1);
 
-		/*
-		 * I believe that it's safe to nest i_mutex inside
-		 * cgroup_mutex in this case, since no-one else can
-		 * be accessing this directory yet. But we still need
-		 * to teach lockdep that this is the case - currently
-		 * a cgroupfs remount triggers a lockdep warning
-		 */
-		mutex_lock(&cont->dentry->d_inode->i_mutex);
 		cgroup_populate_dir(cont);
-		mutex_unlock(&cont->dentry->d_inode->i_mutex);
+		mutex_unlock(&inode->i_mutex);
 		mutex_unlock(&cgroup_mutex);
 	}
 
@@ -1358,7 +1355,7 @@ static int cgroup_create_file(struct 
 
 		/* start with the directory inode held, so that we can
 		 * populate it without racing with another mkdir */
-		mutex_lock(&inode->i_mutex);
+		mutex_lock_nested(&inode->i_mutex, I_MUTEX_CHILD);
 	} else if (S_ISREG(mode)) {
 		inode->i_size = 0;
 		inode->i_fop = &cgroup_file_operations;
_

--
_______________________________________________
Containers mailing list
Containers@lists.linux-foundation.org
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
 
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Previous Topic: [PATCH] Update get_net_ns_by_pid
Next Topic: [RFC}[PATCH] forced uncharge for successful rmdir.
Goto Forum:
  


Current Time: Fri Aug 22 02:02:28 GMT 2025

Total time taken to generate the page: 0.05990 seconds