[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20121029135203.GA20757@dhcp22.suse.cz>
Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2012 14:52:03 +0100
From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>
To: Glauber Costa <glommer@...allels.com>
Cc: linux-mm@...ck.org, cgroups@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, Li Zefan <lizefan@...wei.com>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>,
Balbir Singh <bsingharora@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/6] memcg: root_cgroup cannot reach
mem_cgroup_move_parent
On Mon 29-10-12 17:48:00, Glauber Costa wrote:
> On 10/26/2012 03:37 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > The root cgroup cannot be destroyed so we never hit it down the
> > mem_cgroup_pre_destroy path and mem_cgroup_force_empty_write shouldn't
> > even try to do anything if called for the root.
> >
> > This means that mem_cgroup_move_parent doesn't have to bother with the
> > root cgroup and it can assume it can always move charges upwards.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>
> > Reviewed-by: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
>
> I think it would be safer to have this folded in the last patch, to
> avoid a weird intermediate state (specially for force_empty).
force_empty excludes root cgroup explicitly so there is no way to fail
here. I have kept VM_BUG_ON for future reference but it also can go away
completely.
> Being a single statement, it doesn't confuse review so much.
>
> However, this is also pretty much just a nitpick, do as you prefer.
>
> Reviewed-by: Glauber Costa <glommer@...allels.com>
>
--
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