[lkml]   [2008]   [Dec]   [4]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [Experimental][PATCH 19/21] memcg-fix-pre-destroy.patch
Added CC: Paul Menage <>

> @@ -2096,7 +2112,7 @@ static void mem_cgroup_get(struct mem_cg
> static void mem_cgroup_put(struct mem_cgroup *mem)
> {
> if (atomic_dec_and_test(&mem->refcnt)) {
> - if (!mem->obsolete)
> + if (!css_under_removal(&mem->css))
> return;
> mem_cgroup_free(mem);
> }
I don't think it's safe to check css_under_removal here w/o cgroup_lock.
(It's safe *NOW* just because memcg is the only user of css->refcnt.)

As Li said before, css_under_removal doesn't necessarily mean
this this group has been destroyed, but mem_cgroup will be freed.

But adding cgroup_lock/unlock here causes another dead lock,
because mem_cgroup_get_next_node calls mem_cgroup_put.

hmm.. hierarchical reclaim code will be re-written completely by [21/21],
so would it be better to change patch order or to take another approach ?

Daisuke Nishimura.

 \ /
  Last update: 2008-12-04 10:39    [W:0.127 / U:8.644 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site