[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <3b8d0a31-d869-4564-0e03-ac621af43ce7@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2017 18:50:19 +0100
From: Laurent Dufour <ldufour@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
Cc: Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
Vladimir Davydov <vdavydov.dev@...il.com>,
cgroups@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] mm/cgroup: delay soft limit data allocation
On 22/02/2017 18:11, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Wed 22-02-17 16:58:11, Laurent Dufour wrote:
> [...]
>> static struct mem_cgroup_tree_per_node *
>> soft_limit_tree_node(int nid)
>> {
>> @@ -465,6 +497,8 @@ static void mem_cgroup_update_tree(struct mem_cgroup *memcg, struct page *page)
>> struct mem_cgroup_tree_per_node *mctz;
>>
>> mctz = soft_limit_tree_from_page(page);
>> + if (!mctz)
>> + return;
>> /*
>> * Necessary to update all ancestors when hierarchy is used.
>> * because their event counter is not touched.
>> @@ -502,7 +536,8 @@ static void mem_cgroup_remove_from_trees(struct mem_cgroup *memcg)
>> for_each_node(nid) {
>> mz = mem_cgroup_nodeinfo(memcg, nid);
>> mctz = soft_limit_tree_node(nid);
>> - mem_cgroup_remove_exceeded(mz, mctz);
>> + if (mctz)
>> + mem_cgroup_remove_exceeded(mz, mctz);
>> }
>> }
>>
>
> this belongs to the previous patch, right?
It may. I made the first patch fixing the panic I saw but if you prefer
this to be part of the first one, fair enough.
Tell me what you like.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists