[lkml]   [2012]   [Oct]   [9]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH v4 08/14] res_counter: return amount of charges after res_counter_uncharge
On Tue 09-10-12 19:14:57, Glauber Costa wrote:
> On 10/09/2012 07:08 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > As I have already mentioned in my previous feedback this is cetainly not
> > atomic as you the lock protects only one group in the hierarchy. How is
> > the return value from this function supposed to be used?
> So, I tried to make that clearer in the updated changelog.
> Only the value of the base memcg (the one passed to the function) is
> returned, and it is atomic, in the sense that it has the same semantics
> as the atomic variables: If 2 threads uncharge 4k each from a 8 k
> counter, a subsequent read can return 0 for both. The return value here
> will guarantee that only one sees the drop to 0.
> This is used in the patch "kmem_accounting lifecycle management" to be
> sure that only one process will call mem_cgroup_put() in the memcg
> structure.

Yes, you are using res_counter_uncharge and its semantic makes sense.
I was refering to res_counter_uncharge_until (you removed that context
from my reply) because that one can race resulting that nobody sees 0
even though that parents get down to 0 as a result:
/ \
C(x) D(y)

D and C uncharge everything.

ret += uncharge(D) [0] ret += uncharge(C) [0]
ret += uncharge(B) [x-from C]
ret += uncharge(B) [0]
ret += uncharge(A) [y-from D]
ret += uncharge(A) [0]

ret == x ret == y
Michal Hocko

 \ /
  Last update: 2012-10-09 18:21    [W:0.079 / U:4.724 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site