lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [Mar]   [3]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 0/4] Memory controller soft limit patches (v3)
* KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> [2009-03-03 09:03:03]:

> On Mon, 2 Mar 2009 23:22:35 +0530
> Balbir Singh <balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
>
> > * KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> [2009-03-02 15:18:30]:
> >
> > > On Mon, 2 Mar 2009 11:35:19 +0530
> > > Balbir Singh <balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > > Then, not-sorted RB-tree can be there.
> > > > >
> > > > > BTW,
> > > > > time_after(jiffies, 0)
> > > > > is buggy (see definition). If you want make this true always,
> > > > > time_after(jiffies, jiffies +1)
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > HZ/4 is 250/4 jiffies in the worst case (62). We have
> > > > time_after(jiffies, next_update_interval) and next_update_interval is
> > > > set to last_tree_update + 62. Not sure if I got what you are pointing
> > > > to.
> > > >
> > > + unsigned long next_update = 0;
> > > + unsigned long flags;
> > > +
> > > + if (!css_tryget(&mem->css))
> > > + return;
> > > + prev_usage_in_excess = mem->usage_in_excess;
> > > + new_usage_in_excess = res_counter_soft_limit_excess(&mem->res);
> > > +
> > > + if (time_check)
> > > + next_update = mem->last_tree_update +
> > > + MEM_CGROUP_TREE_UPDATE_INTERVAL;
> > > + if (new_usage_in_excess && time_after(jiffies, next_update)) {
> > > + if (prev_usage_in_excess)
> > > + mem_cgroup_remove_exceeded(mem);
> > > + mem_cgroup_insert_exceeded(mem);
> > > + updated_tree = true;
> > > + } else if (prev_usage_in_excess && !new_usage_in_excess) {
> > > + mem_cgroup_remove_exceeded(mem);
> > > + updated_tree = true;
> > > + }
> > >
> > > My point is what happens if time_check==false.
> > > time_afrter(jiffies, 0) is buggy.
> > >
> >
> > I see your point now, but the idea behind doing so is that
> > time_after(jiffies, 0) will always return false, which forces the
> > prev_usage_in_excess and !new_usage_in_excess check to execute. We set
> > the value to false only from __mem_cgroup_free().
> >
> > Are you suggesting that calling time_after(jiffies, 0) is buggy?
> > The comment
> >
> > Do this with "<0" and ">=0" to only test the sign of the result. A
> >
> > I think refers to the comparison check and not to the parameters. I
> > hope I am reading this right.
>
> 106 #define time_after(a,b) \
> 107 (typecheck(unsigned long, a) && \
> 108 typecheck(unsigned long, b) && \
> 109 ((long)(b) - (long)(a) < 0))
>
> Reading above.
>
> if b==0.
> if (long)a <0 -> false
> if (long)a >0 -> true
>
> jiffies is unsigned value. please think of bit-pattern of signed/unsigned value.

Fair enough, the cast to long will be an issue. I'll fix it.

--
Balbir


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2009-03-03 12:25    [W:0.121 / U:0.184 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site