Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 28 May 2014 09:44:09 +0200 | From | Michal Hocko <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH mmotm/next] memcg-mm-introduce-lowlimit-reclaim-fix2.patch |
| |
On Tue 27-05-14 14:36:04, Hugh Dickins wrote: > mem_cgroup_within_guarantee() oopses in _raw_spin_lock_irqsave() when > booted with cgroup_disable=memory. Fix that in the obvious inelegant > way for now - though I hope we are moving towards a world in which > almost all of the mem_cgroup_disabled() tests will vanish, with a > root_mem_cgroup which can handle the basics even when disabled. > > I bet there's a neater way of doing this, rearranging the loop (and we > shall want to avoid spinlocking on root_mem_cgroup when we reach that > new world), but that's the kind of thing I'd get wrong in a hurry! > > Signed-off-by: Hugh Dickins <hughd@google.com>
Acked-by: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.cz>
Thanks!
> --- > > mm/memcontrol.c | 3 +++ > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+) > > --- mmotm/mm/memcontrol.c 2014-05-21 18:12:18.072022438 -0700 > +++ linux/mm/memcontrol.c 2014-05-21 19:34:30.608546905 -0700 > @@ -2793,6 +2793,9 @@ static struct mem_cgroup *mem_cgroup_loo > bool mem_cgroup_within_guarantee(struct mem_cgroup *memcg, > struct mem_cgroup *root) > { > + if (mem_cgroup_disabled()) > + return false; > + > do { > if (!res_counter_low_limit_excess(&memcg->res)) > return true;
-- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs
| |