[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140528074409.GA9895@dhcp22.suse.cz>
Date: Wed, 28 May 2014 09:44:09 +0200
From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>
To: Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH mmotm/next] memcg-mm-introduce-lowlimit-reclaim-fix2.patch
On Tue 27-05-14 14:36:04, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> 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>
Acked-by: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>
Thanks!
> ---
>
> 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;
--
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