[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20121001094846.GC8622@dhcp22.suse.cz>
Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2012 11:48:46 +0200
From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>
To: Glauber Costa <glommer@...allels.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, cgroups@...r.kernel.org,
kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com, devel@...nvz.org,
Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
Suleiman Souhlal <suleiman@...gle.com>,
Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>,
Pekka Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 06/13] memcg: kmem controller infrastructure
On Fri 28-09-12 15:34:19, Glauber Costa wrote:
> On 09/27/2012 05:44 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> >> > the reference count aquired by mem_cgroup_get will still prevent the
> >> > memcg from going away, no?
> > Yes but you are outside of the rcu now and we usually do css_get before
> > we rcu_unlock. mem_cgroup_get just makes sure the group doesn't get
> > deallocated but it could be gone before you call it. Or I am just
> > confused - these 2 levels of ref counting is really not nice.
> >
> > Anyway, I have just noticed that __mem_cgroup_try_charge does
> > VM_BUG_ON(css_is_removed(&memcg->css)) on a given memcg so you should
> > keep css ref count up as well.
> >
>
> IIRC, css_get will prevent the cgroup directory from being removed.
> Because some allocations are expected to outlive the cgroup, we
> specifically don't want that.
Yes, but how do you guarantee that the above VM_BUG_ON doesn't trigger?
Task could have been moved to another group between mem_cgroup_from_task
and mem_cgroup_get, no?
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
--
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