Re: [mmotm][experimental][PATCH] coalescing charge

[Daisuke Nishimura]

On Fri, 4 Sep 2009 14:26:54 +0900, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Fri, 4 Sep 2009 14:21:43 +0900
> KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> > On Fri, 4 Sep 2009 14:11:57 +0900
> > Daisuke Nishimura <nishimura@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > 
> > > > > > Signed-off-by: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > It looks basically good. I'll do some tests with all patches applied.
> > > > > 
> > > > thanks.
> > > > 
> > > it seems that these patches make rmdir stall again...
> > > This batched charge patch seems not to be the (only) suspect, though.
> > > 
> > Ouch, no probelm with the latest mmotm ? I think this charge-uncharge-offload
> > patch set doesn't use css_set()/get()...
> > Hm, softlimit related parts ?
> > 
hmm, these patches(including softlimit cleanup) seems not to be guilt.
Current(I'm using mmotm-2009-08-27-16-51) mmotm seems to be broken about memcg's rmdir.

I must admit I've not tested mmotm for several months because I have been working
on stabilizing mainline for a long time...

> Ah, one more question. What memory.usage_in_bytes shows in that case ?
> If not zero, charge/uncharge coalescing is guilty.
> 
usage_in_bytes is 0.
I've confirmed by crash command that the mem_cgroup has extra ref counts.

I'll dig more..


Thanks,
Daisuke Nishimura.
--
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/