[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140419181407.GB982@redhat.com>
Date: Sat, 19 Apr 2014 20:14:07 +0200
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Peter Chiang <pchiang@...dia.com>,
KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>,
Balbir Singh <bsingharora@...il.com>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
"ccross@...roid.com" <ccross@...roid.com>,
"lizefan@...wei.com" <lizefan@...wei.com>,
"tj@...nel.org" <tj@...nel.org>,
"ebiederm@...ssion.com" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
"guillaume@...infr.org" <guillaume@...infr.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] memcg: mm_update_next_owner() should skip kthreads
Hi,
On 04/19, Pavel Machek wrote:
>
> > > Hmm. I seem to see a bug in this function, it can be fulled by use_mm,
> > > but I am not sure this can explain the problem. I'll send a patch.
> >
> > Untested, please review. But it really looks "obviously wrong", and note
> > that unuse_mm() doesn't do mm_update_next_owner(). (just in case, do not
> > confuse it with unuse_mm() in mm/swapfile.c).
>
> Having two functions, one exported, one static with same name -- that
> sounds quite evil, right?
Yes, agreed.
> mmu_context.c: * unuse_mm
> mmu_context.c:void unuse_mm(struct mm_struct *mm)
> mmu_context.c:EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(unuse_mm);
> swapfile.c:static int unuse_mm(struct mm_struct *mm,
Yes, I was thinking about s/unuse_mm/unswap_mm/ change in swapfile.c,
but then we should probaly rename other "unuse" functions there, and
shmem_unuse/try_to_unuse are not static.
Oleg.
--
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