[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20100423070011.GS3994@balbir.in.ibm.com>
Date: Fri, 23 Apr 2010 12:30:11 +0530
From: Balbir Singh <balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>
Cc: Li Zefan <lizf@...fujitsu.com>,
Daisuke Nishimura <nishimura@....nes.nec.co.jp>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
"linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"akpm@...ux-foundation.org" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [BUGFIX][PATCH] memcg rcu lock fix v3
* KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com> [2010-04-23 13:03:49]:
> On Fri, 23 Apr 2010 12:58:14 +0900
> KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com> wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 23 Apr 2010 11:55:16 +0800
> > Li Zefan <lizf@...fujitsu.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Li Zefan wrote:
> > > > KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote:
> > > >> On Fri, 23 Apr 2010 11:00:41 +0800
> > > >> Li Zefan <lizf@...fujitsu.com> wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >>> with CONFIG_PROVE_RCU=y, I saw this warning, it's because
> > > >>> css_id() is not under rcu_read_lock().
> > > >>>
> > > >> Ok. Thank you for reporting.
> > > >> This is ok ?
> > > >
> > > > Yes, and I did some more simple tests on memcg, no more warning
> > > > showed up.
> > > >
> > >
> > > oops, after trigging oom, I saw 2 more warnings:
> > >
> >
> > Thank you for good testing.
> v3 here...sorry too rapid posting...
>
Looking at the patch we seem to be protecting the use of only css_*().
I wonder if we should push down the rcu_read_*lock() semnatics to the
css routines or is it just too instrusive to do it that way?
--
Three Cheers,
Balbir
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists