lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2012]   [Mar]   [14]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH -V3 7/8] memcg: move HugeTLB resource count to parent cgroup on memcg removal
Date
On Tue, 13 Mar 2012 14:47:05 -0700, Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Mar 2012 12:37:11 +0530
> "Aneesh Kumar K.V" <aneesh.kumar@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
>
> > From: "Aneesh Kumar K.V" <aneesh.kumar@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
> >
> > This add support for memcg removal with HugeTLB resource usage.
> >
> > ...
> >
> > +int hugetlb_force_memcg_empty(struct cgroup *cgroup)
>
> It's useful to document things, you know. For a major function like
> this, a nice little description of why it exists, what its role is,
> etc. Programming is not just an act of telling a computer what to do:
> it is also an act of telling other programmers what you wished the
> computer to do. Both are important, and the latter deserves care.
>


Will do.

> > +{
> > + struct hstate *h;
> > + struct page *page;
> > + int ret = 0, idx = 0;
> > +
> > + do {
> > + if (cgroup_task_count(cgroup) || !list_empty(&cgroup->children))
> > + goto out;
> > + if (signal_pending(current)) {
> > + ret = -EINTR;
> > + goto out;
> > + }
>
> Why is its behaviour altered by signal_pending()? This seems broken.

If the task that is doing a cgroup_rmdir got a signal we don't really
need to loop till the hugetlb resource usage become zero.


>
> > + for_each_hstate(h) {
> > + spin_lock(&hugetlb_lock);
> > + list_for_each_entry(page, &h->hugepage_activelist, lru) {
> > + ret = mem_cgroup_move_hugetlb_parent(idx, cgroup, page);
> > + if (ret) {
> > + spin_unlock(&hugetlb_lock);
> > + goto out;
> > + }
> > + }
> > + spin_unlock(&hugetlb_lock);
> > + idx++;
> > + }
> > + cond_resched();
> > + } while (mem_cgroup_hugetlb_usage(cgroup) > 0);
> > +out:
> > + return ret;
> > +}

-aneesh



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2012-03-14 13:45    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans