[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190311171748.GB10823@cmpxchg.org>
Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2019 13:17:48 -0400
From: Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>
To: Roman Gushchin <guroan@...il.com>
Cc: linux-mm@...ck.org, kernel-team@...com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
Rik van Riel <riel@...riel.com>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>, Roman Gushchin <guro@...com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/5] mm: prepare to premature release of per-node
lruvec_stat_cpu
On Thu, Mar 07, 2019 at 03:00:30PM -0800, Roman Gushchin wrote:
> Similar to the memcg's vmstats_percpu, per-memcg per-node stats
> consists of percpu- and atomic counterparts, and we do expect
> that both coexist during the whole life-cycle of the memcg.
>
> To prepare for a premature release of percpu per-node data,
> let's pretend that lruvec_stat_cpu is a rcu-protected pointer,
> which can be NULL. This patch adds corresponding checks whenever
> required.
>
> Signed-off-by: Roman Gushchin <guro@...com>
Acked-by: Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>
> @@ -4430,7 +4436,8 @@ static int alloc_mem_cgroup_per_node_info(struct mem_cgroup *memcg, int node)
> if (!pn)
> return 1;
>
> - pn->lruvec_stat_cpu = alloc_percpu(struct lruvec_stat);
> + rcu_assign_pointer(pn->lruvec_stat_cpu,
> + alloc_percpu(struct lruvec_stat));
> if (!pn->lruvec_stat_cpu) {
Nitpick: wouldn't this have to use rcu_dereference()? Might be cleaner
to use an intermediate variable and only assign after the NULL check.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists