[lkml]   [2011]   [Dec]   [12]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH] mm: memcg: keep root group unchanged if fail to create new
On Sun 11-12-11 15:39:43, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> On Sun, 11 Dec 2011, Hillf Danton wrote:
> > If the request is not to create root group and we fail to meet it,
> > we'd leave the root unchanged.
> I didn't understand that at first: please say "we should" rather
> than "we'd", which I take to be an abbreviation for "we would".
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Hillf Danton <>
> Yes indeed, well caught:
> Acked-by: Hugh Dickins <>
> I wonder what was going through the author's mind when he wrote it
> that way? I wonder if it's one of those bugs that creeps in when
> you start from a perfectly functional patch, then make refinements
> to suit feedback from reviewers.
> On which topic: wouldn't this patch be better just to move the
> "root_mem_cgroup = memcg;" two lines lower down (and of course
> remove free_out's "root_mem_cgroup = NULL;" as you already did)?

Yes would look nicer.

> I can't see mem_cgroup_soft_limit_tree_init() relying on
> root_mem_cgroup at all.

It doesn't but it still needs some love to handle error case properly
AFAICS. We do not deallocate softlimit trees for nodes that succeeded.


Hilf could you update the patch please?
Michal Hocko
Lihovarska 1060/12
190 00 Praha 9
Czech Republic

 \ /
  Last update: 2011-12-12 14:13    [W:0.073 / U:1.796 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site