[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20100824085111.6acf8881.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>
Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2010 08:51:11 +0900
From: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>
To: Daisuke Nishimura <nishimura@....nes.nec.co.jp>
Cc: linux-mm@...ck.org,
"balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com" <balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
gthelen@...gle.com, m-ikeda@...jp.nec.com,
"akpm@...ux-foundation.org" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
kamezawa.hiroyuki@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/5] memcg: use array and ID for quick look up
On Mon, 23 Aug 2010 12:35:33 +0900
Daisuke Nishimura <nishimura@....nes.nec.co.jp> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> > +/* 0 is unused */
> > +static atomic_t mem_cgroup_num;
> > +#define NR_MEMCG_GROUPS (CONFIG_MEM_CGROUP_MAX_GROUPS + 1)
> > +static struct mem_cgroup *mem_cgroups[NR_MEMCG_GROUPS] __read_mostly;
> > +
> > +/* Must be called under rcu_read_lock */
> > +static struct mem_cgroup *id_to_memcg(unsigned short id)
> > +{
> > + struct mem_cgroup *ret;
> > + /* see mem_cgroup_free() */
> > + ret = rcu_dereference_check(mem_cgroups[id], rch_read_lock_held());
> > + if (likely(ret && ret->valid))
> > + return ret;
> > + return NULL;
> > +}
> > +
> I prefer "mem" to "ret".
>
Hmm, ok.
> > @@ -2231,7 +2244,7 @@ __mem_cgroup_commit_charge_swapin(struct
> >
> > id = swap_cgroup_record(ent, 0);
> > rcu_read_lock();
> > - memcg = mem_cgroup_lookup(id);
> > + memcg = id_to_memcg(id);
> > if (memcg) {
> > /*
> > * This recorded memcg can be obsolete one. So, avoid
> > @@ -2240,9 +2253,10 @@ __mem_cgroup_commit_charge_swapin(struct
> > if (!mem_cgroup_is_root(memcg))
> > res_counter_uncharge(&memcg->memsw, PAGE_SIZE);
> > mem_cgroup_swap_statistics(memcg, false);
> > + rcu_read_unlock();
> > mem_cgroup_put(memcg);
> > - }
> > - rcu_read_unlock();
> > + } else
> > + rcu_read_unlock();
> > }
> > /*
> > * At swapin, we may charge account against cgroup which has no tasks.
> > @@ -2495,7 +2509,7 @@ void mem_cgroup_uncharge_swap(swp_entry_
> >
> > id = swap_cgroup_record(ent, 0);
> > rcu_read_lock();
> > - memcg = mem_cgroup_lookup(id);
> > + memcg = id_to_memcg(id);
> > if (memcg) {
> > /*
> > * We uncharge this because swap is freed.
> > @@ -2504,9 +2518,10 @@ void mem_cgroup_uncharge_swap(swp_entry_
> > if (!mem_cgroup_is_root(memcg))
> > res_counter_uncharge(&memcg->memsw, PAGE_SIZE);
> > mem_cgroup_swap_statistics(memcg, false);
> > + rcu_read_unlock();
> > mem_cgroup_put(memcg);
> > - }
> > - rcu_read_unlock();
> > + } else
> > + rcu_read_unlock();
> > }
> >
> > /**
> Could you explain why we need rcu_read_unlock() before mem_cgroup_put() ?
> I suspect that it's because mem_cgroup_put() can free the memcg, but do we
> need mem->valid then ?
>
mem_cgroup_put() may call synchronize_rcu(). So, we have to unlock before it.
Thanks,
-Kame
--
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