[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20121018084212.GA24295@dhcp22.suse.cz>
Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2012 10:42:12 +0200
From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>
To: Li Zefan <lizefan@...wei.com>
Cc: linux-mm@...ck.org, cgroups@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>,
Balbir Singh <bsingharora@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/6] memcg: make mem_cgroup_reparent_charges non failing
On Thu 18-10-12 16:30:19, Li Zefan wrote:
> > static int mem_cgroup_force_empty_write(struct cgroup *cont, unsigned int event)
> > @@ -5013,13 +5011,9 @@ free_out:
> > static int mem_cgroup_pre_destroy(struct cgroup *cont)
> > {
> > struct mem_cgroup *memcg = mem_cgroup_from_cont(cont);
> > - int ret;
> >
> > - css_get(&memcg->css);
> > - ret = mem_cgroup_reparent_charges(memcg);
> > - css_put(&memcg->css);
> > -
> > - return ret;
> > + mem_cgroup_reparent_charges(memcg);
> > + return 0;
> > }
> >
>
> Why don't you make pre_destroy() return void?
Yes I plan to do that later after I have feedback for this RFC. I am
especially interested whether the cgroup core patch is OK, resp. has to
be reworked to pull pre_destroy outside of cgroup_lock
Thanks
--
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