[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1399671091-23867-4-git-send-email-tj@kernel.org>
Date: Fri, 9 May 2014 17:31:20 -0400
From: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To: lizefan@...wei.com
Cc: cgroups@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
hannes@...xchg.org, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>
Subject: [PATCH 03/14] memcg: update memcg_has_children() to use css_next_child()
Currently, memcg_has_children() and mem_cgroup_hierarchy_write()
directly test cgroup->children for list emptiness. It's semantically
correct in traditional hierarchies as it actually wants to test for
any children dead or alive; however, cgroup->children is not a
published field and scheduled to go away.
This patch moves out .use_hierarchy test out of memcg_has_children()
and updates it to use css_next_child() to test whether there exists
any children. With .use_hierarchy test moved out, it can also be used
by mem_cgroup_hierarchy_write().
A side note: As .use_hierarchy is going away, it doesn't really matter
but I'm not sure about how it's used in __memcg_activate_kmem(). The
condition tested by memcg_has_children() is mushy when seen from
userland as its result is affected by dead csses which aren't visible
from userland. I think the rule would be a lot clearer if we have a
dedicated "freshly minted" flag which gets cleared when the first task
is migrated into it or the first child is created and then gate
activation with that.
Signed-off-by: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Cc: Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>
Cc: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>
---
mm/memcontrol.c | 26 ++++++++++++++++----------
1 file changed, 16 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
diff --git a/mm/memcontrol.c b/mm/memcontrol.c
index 036453a..eb6e1b5 100644
--- a/mm/memcontrol.c
+++ b/mm/memcontrol.c
@@ -4834,18 +4834,23 @@ static void mem_cgroup_reparent_charges(struct mem_cgroup *memcg)
} while (usage > 0);
}
+/* test whether @memcg has children, dead or alive */
static inline bool memcg_has_children(struct mem_cgroup *memcg)
{
- lockdep_assert_held(&memcg_create_mutex);
+ bool ret;
+
/*
- * The lock does not prevent addition or deletion to the list
- * of children, but it prevents a new child from being
- * initialized based on this parent in css_online(), so it's
- * enough to decide whether hierarchically inherited
- * attributes can still be changed or not.
+ * The lock does not prevent addition or deletion of children, but
+ * it prevents a new child from being initialized based on this
+ * parent in css_online(), so it's enough to decide whether
+ * hierarchically inherited attributes can still be changed or not.
*/
- return memcg->use_hierarchy &&
- !list_empty(&memcg->css.cgroup->children);
+ lockdep_assert_held(&memcg_create_mutex);
+
+ rcu_read_lock();
+ ret = css_next_child(NULL, &memcg->css);
+ rcu_read_unlock();
+ return ret;
}
/*
@@ -4921,7 +4926,7 @@ static int mem_cgroup_hierarchy_write(struct cgroup_subsys_state *css,
*/
if ((!parent_memcg || !parent_memcg->use_hierarchy) &&
(val == 1 || val == 0)) {
- if (list_empty(&memcg->css.cgroup->children))
+ if (!memcg_has_children(memcg))
memcg->use_hierarchy = val;
else
retval = -EBUSY;
@@ -5038,7 +5043,8 @@ static int __memcg_activate_kmem(struct mem_cgroup *memcg,
* of course permitted.
*/
mutex_lock(&memcg_create_mutex);
- if (cgroup_has_tasks(memcg->css.cgroup) || memcg_has_children(memcg))
+ if (cgroup_has_tasks(memcg->css.cgroup) ||
+ (memcg->use_hierarchy && memcg_has_children(memcg)))
err = -EBUSY;
mutex_unlock(&memcg_create_mutex);
if (err)
--
1.9.0
--
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