Re: [Experimental][PATCH 19/21] memcg-fix-pre-destroy.patch

[KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki]

On Thu, 4 Dec 2008 18:34:28 +0900
Daisuke Nishimura <nishimura@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Added CC: Paul Menage <menage@xxxxxxxxxx>
> 
> > @@ -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 ?
> 
Hmm, ok.

How about this ?
==
	At initlization, mem_cgroup_create(), set memcg->refcnt to be 1.

	At destroy(), put this refcnt by 1.

	remove css_under_removal(&mem->css) check.
==

-Kame

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/