[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4FDFC3A8.7010301@jp.fujitsu.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2012 09:11:20 +0900
From: Kamezawa Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>
To: Glauber Costa <glommer@...allels.com>
CC: linux-mm@...ck.org, Pekka Enberg <penberg@...nel.org>,
Cristoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>,
David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>, cgroups@...r.kernel.org,
devel@...nvz.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
Suleiman Souhlal <suleiman@...gle.com>,
Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, Li Zefan <lizefan@...wei.com>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 05/25] memcg: Always free struct memcg through schedule_work()
(2012/06/18 21:10), Glauber Costa wrote:
> On 06/18/2012 04:07 PM, Kamezawa Hiroyuki wrote:
>> (2012/06/18 19:27), Glauber Costa wrote:
>>> Right now we free struct memcg with kfree right after a
>>> rcu grace period, but defer it if we need to use vfree() to get
>>> rid of that memory area. We do that by need, because we need vfree
>>> to be called in a process context.
>>>
>>> This patch unifies this behavior, by ensuring that even kfree will
>>> happen in a separate thread. The goal is to have a stable place to
>>> call the upcoming jump label destruction function outside the realm
>>> of the complicated and quite far-reaching cgroup lock (that can't be
>>> held when calling neither the cpu_hotplug.lock nor the jump_label_mutex)
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Glauber Costa<glommer@...allels.com>
>>> CC: Tejun Heo<tj@...nel.org>
>>> CC: Li Zefan<lizefan@...wei.com>
>>> CC: Kamezawa Hiroyuki<kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>
>>> CC: Johannes Weiner<hannes@...xchg.org>
>>> CC: Michal Hocko<mhocko@...e.cz>
>>
>> How about cut out this patch and merge first as simple cleanu up and
>> to reduce patch stack on your side ?
>>
>> Acked-by: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki<kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>
>
> I believe this is already in the -mm tree (from the sock memcg fixes)
>
> But actually, my main trouble with this series here, is that I am basing
> it on Pekka's tree, while some of the fixes are in -mm already.
> If I'd base it on -mm I would lose some of the stuff as well.
>
> Maybe Pekka can merge the current -mm with his tree?
>
> So far I am happy with getting comments from people about the code, so I
> did not get overly concerned about that.
>
Sure. thank you.
-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