[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20130212161332.GI4863@dhcp22.suse.cz>
Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2013 17:13:32 +0100
From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>
To: Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>
Cc: linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>,
Ying Han <yinghan@...gle.com>, Tejun Heo <htejun@...il.com>,
Glauber Costa <glommer@...allels.com>,
Li Zefan <lizefan@...wei.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 4/7] memcg: remove memcg from the reclaim iterators
On Tue 12-02-13 16:43:30, Michal Hocko wrote:
[...]
The example was not complete:
> Wait a moment. But what prevents from the following race?
>
> rcu_read_lock()
cgroup_next_descendant_pre
css_tryget(css);
memcg = mem_cgroup_from_css(css) atomic_add(CSS_DEACT_BIAS, &css->refcnt)
> mem_cgroup_css_offline(memcg)
We should be safe if we did synchronize_rcu() before root->dead_count++,
no?
Because then we would have a guarantee that if css_tryget(memcg)
suceeded then we wouldn't race with dead_count++ it triggered.
> root->dead_count++
> iter->last_dead_count = root->dead_count
> iter->last_visited = memcg
> // final
> css_put(memcg);
> // last_visited is still valid
> rcu_read_unlock()
> [...]
> // next iteration
> rcu_read_lock()
> iter->last_dead_count == root->dead_count
> // KABOOM
>
> The race window between dead_count++ and css_put is quite big but that
> is not important because that css_put can happen anytime before we start
> the next iteration and take rcu_read_lock.
--
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