[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20130507144619.GE9497@dhcp22.suse.cz>
Date: Tue, 7 May 2013 16:46:19 +0200
From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>
To: David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: [patch] mm, memcg: don't take task_lock in task_in_mem_cgroup
On Fri 03-05-13 09:49:49, David Rientjes wrote:
> For processes that have detached their mm's, task_in_mem_cgroup()
> unnecessarily takes task_lock() when rcu_read_lock() is all that is
> necessary to call mem_cgroup_from_task().
>
> While we're here, switch task_in_mem_cgroup() to return bool.
>
> Signed-off-by: David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
Well spotted!
Acked-by: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>
Thanks
> ---
> include/linux/memcontrol.h | 9 +++++----
> mm/memcontrol.c | 11 ++++++-----
> 2 files changed, 11 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/include/linux/memcontrol.h b/include/linux/memcontrol.h
> --- a/include/linux/memcontrol.h
> +++ b/include/linux/memcontrol.h
> @@ -77,7 +77,8 @@ extern void mem_cgroup_uncharge_cache_page(struct page *page);
>
> bool __mem_cgroup_same_or_subtree(const struct mem_cgroup *root_memcg,
> struct mem_cgroup *memcg);
> -int task_in_mem_cgroup(struct task_struct *task, const struct mem_cgroup *memcg);
> +bool task_in_mem_cgroup(struct task_struct *task,
> + const struct mem_cgroup *memcg);
>
> extern struct mem_cgroup *try_get_mem_cgroup_from_page(struct page *page);
> extern struct mem_cgroup *mem_cgroup_from_task(struct task_struct *p);
> @@ -273,10 +274,10 @@ static inline bool mm_match_cgroup(struct mm_struct *mm,
> return true;
> }
>
> -static inline int task_in_mem_cgroup(struct task_struct *task,
> - const struct mem_cgroup *memcg)
> +static inline bool task_in_mem_cgroup(struct task_struct *task,
> + const struct mem_cgroup *memcg)
> {
> - return 1;
> + return true;
> }
>
> static inline struct cgroup_subsys_state
> diff --git a/mm/memcontrol.c b/mm/memcontrol.c
> --- a/mm/memcontrol.c
> +++ b/mm/memcontrol.c
> @@ -1443,11 +1443,12 @@ static bool mem_cgroup_same_or_subtree(const struct mem_cgroup *root_memcg,
> return ret;
> }
>
> -int task_in_mem_cgroup(struct task_struct *task, const struct mem_cgroup *memcg)
> +bool task_in_mem_cgroup(struct task_struct *task,
> + const struct mem_cgroup *memcg)
> {
> - int ret;
> struct mem_cgroup *curr = NULL;
> struct task_struct *p;
> + bool ret;
>
> p = find_lock_task_mm(task);
> if (p) {
> @@ -1459,14 +1460,14 @@ int task_in_mem_cgroup(struct task_struct *task, const struct mem_cgroup *memcg)
> * killer still needs to detect if they have already been oom
> * killed to prevent needlessly killing additional tasks.
> */
> - task_lock(task);
> + rcu_read_lock();
> curr = mem_cgroup_from_task(task);
> if (curr)
> css_get(&curr->css);
> - task_unlock(task);
> + rcu_read_unlock();
> }
> if (!curr)
> - return 0;
> + return false;
> /*
> * We should check use_hierarchy of "memcg" not "curr". Because checking
> * use_hierarchy of "curr" here make this function true if hierarchy is
--
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