[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4ED91318.1030803@parallels.com>
Date: Fri, 2 Dec 2011 16:04:08 -0200
From: Glauber Costa <glommer@...allels.com>
To: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>
CC: <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <paul@...lmenage.org>,
<lizf@...fujitsu.com>, <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
<davem@...emloft.net>, <gthelen@...gle.com>,
<netdev@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
<kirill@...temov.name>, <avagin@...allels.com>, <devel@...nvz.org>,
<eric.dumazet@...il.com>, <cgroups@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 00/10] Request for Inclusion: per-cgroup tcp memory
pressure
On 11/30/2011 12:11 AM, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote:
> On Tue, 29 Nov 2011 21:56:51 -0200
> Glauber Costa<glommer@...allels.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> This patchset implements per-cgroup tcp memory pressure controls. It did not change
>> significantly since last submission: rather, it just merges the comments Kame had.
>> Most of them are style-related and/or Documentation, but there are two real bugs he
>> managed to spot (thanks)
>>
>> Please let me know if there is anything else I should address.
>>
>
> After reading all codes again, I feel some strange. Could you clarify ?
>
> Here.
> ==
> +void sock_update_memcg(struct sock *sk)
> +{
> + /* right now a socket spends its whole life in the same cgroup */
> + if (sk->sk_cgrp) {
> + WARN_ON(1);
> + return;
> + }
> + if (static_branch(&memcg_socket_limit_enabled)) {
> + struct mem_cgroup *memcg;
> +
> + BUG_ON(!sk->sk_prot->proto_cgroup);
> +
> + rcu_read_lock();
> + memcg = mem_cgroup_from_task(current);
> + if (!mem_cgroup_is_root(memcg))
> + sk->sk_cgrp = sk->sk_prot->proto_cgroup(memcg);
> + rcu_read_unlock();
> ==
>
> sk->sk_cgrp is set to a memcg without any reference count.
>
> Then, no check for preventing rmdir() and freeing memcgroup.
>
> Is there some css_get() or mem_cgroup_get() somewhere ?
>
There were a css_get in the first version of this patchset. It was
removed, however, because it was deemed anti-intuitive to prevent rmdir,
since we can't know which sockets are blocking it, or do anything about
it. Or did I misunderstand something ?
--
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