[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.LSU.2.11.1405271432400.4485@eggly.anvils>
Date: Tue, 27 May 2014 14:36:04 -0700 (PDT)
From: Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>
To: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>
cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: [PATCH mmotm/next] memcg-mm-introduce-lowlimit-reclaim-fix2.patch
mem_cgroup_within_guarantee() oopses in _raw_spin_lock_irqsave() when
booted with cgroup_disable=memory. Fix that in the obvious inelegant
way for now - though I hope we are moving towards a world in which
almost all of the mem_cgroup_disabled() tests will vanish, with a
root_mem_cgroup which can handle the basics even when disabled.
I bet there's a neater way of doing this, rearranging the loop (and we
shall want to avoid spinlocking on root_mem_cgroup when we reach that
new world), but that's the kind of thing I'd get wrong in a hurry!
Signed-off-by: Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>
---
mm/memcontrol.c | 3 +++
1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
--- mmotm/mm/memcontrol.c 2014-05-21 18:12:18.072022438 -0700
+++ linux/mm/memcontrol.c 2014-05-21 19:34:30.608546905 -0700
@@ -2793,6 +2793,9 @@ static struct mem_cgroup *mem_cgroup_loo
bool mem_cgroup_within_guarantee(struct mem_cgroup *memcg,
struct mem_cgroup *root)
{
+ if (mem_cgroup_disabled())
+ return false;
+
do {
if (!res_counter_low_limit_excess(&memcg->res))
return true;
--
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