lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2011]   [Sep]   [26]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v3 6/7] tcp buffer limitation: per-cgroup limit
On 09/26/2011 08:02 AM, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote:
> On Sat, 24 Sep 2011 10:30:42 -0300
> Glauber Costa<glommer@parallels.com> wrote:
>
>> On 09/22/2011 03:01 AM, Greg Thelen wrote:
>>> On Sun, Sep 18, 2011 at 5:56 PM, Glauber Costa<glommer@parallels.com> wrote:
>>>> +static inline bool mem_cgroup_is_root(struct mem_cgroup *mem)
>>>> +{
>>>> + return (mem == root_mem_cgroup);
>>>> +}
>>>> +
>>>
>>> Why are you adding a copy of mem_cgroup_is_root(). I see one already
>>> in v3.0. Was it deleted in a previous patch?
>>
>> Already answered by another good samaritan.
>>
>>>> +static int tcp_write_maxmem(struct cgroup *cgrp, struct cftype *cft, u64 val)
>>>> +{
>>>> + struct mem_cgroup *sg = mem_cgroup_from_cont(cgrp);
>>>> + struct mem_cgroup *parent = parent_mem_cgroup(sg);
>>>> + struct net *net = current->nsproxy->net_ns;
>>>> + int i;
>>>> +
>>>> + if (!cgroup_lock_live_group(cgrp))
>>>> + return -ENODEV;
>>>
>>> Why is cgroup_lock_live_cgroup() needed here? Does it protect updates
>>> to sg->tcp_prot_mem[*]?
>>>
>>>> +static u64 tcp_read_maxmem(struct cgroup *cgrp, struct cftype *cft)
>>>> +{
>>>> + struct mem_cgroup *sg = mem_cgroup_from_cont(cgrp);
>>>> + u64 ret;
>>>> +
>>>> + if (!cgroup_lock_live_group(cgrp))
>>>> + return -ENODEV;
>>>
>>> Why is cgroup_lock_live_cgroup() needed here? Does it protect updates
>>> to sg->tcp_max_memory?
>>
>> No, that is not my understanding. My understanding is this lock is
>> needed to protect against the cgroup just disappearing under our nose.
>>
>
> Hm. reference count of dentry for cgroup isn't enough ?
>
> Thanks,
> -Kame
>
think think think think think think...
Yeah, I guess it is.



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2011-09-27 00:53    [W:0.070 / U:0.160 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site