Re: [PATCH 06/11] memcg: kmem controller infrastructure

[David Rientjes]

On Tue, 26 Jun 2012, Glauber Costa wrote:

> > > @@ -416,6 +423,43 @@ static inline void sock_update_memcg(struct sock *sk)
> > >   static inline void sock_release_memcg(struct sock *sk)
> > >   {
> > >   }
> > > +
> > > +#define mem_cgroup_kmem_on 0
> > > +#define __mem_cgroup_new_kmem_page(a, b, c) false
> > > +#define __mem_cgroup_free_kmem_page(a,b )
> > > +#define __mem_cgroup_commit_kmem_page(a, b, c)
> > > +#define is_kmem_tracked_alloc (false)
> > >   #endif /* CONFIG_CGROUP_MEM_RES_CTLR_KMEM */
> > > +
> > > +static __always_inline
> > > +bool mem_cgroup_new_kmem_page(gfp_t gfp, void *handle, int order)
> > > +{
> > > +	if (!mem_cgroup_kmem_on)
> > > +		return true;
> > > +	if (!is_kmem_tracked_alloc)
> > > +		return true;
> > > +	if (!current->mm)
> > > +		return true;
> > > +	if (in_interrupt())
> > > +		return true;
> > 
> > You can't test for current->mm in irq context, so you need to check for
> > in_interrupt() first.
> >
> Right, thanks.
> 
> > Also, what prevents __mem_cgroup_new_kmem_page()
> > from being called for a kthread that has called use_mm() before
> > unuse_mm()?
> 
> Nothing, but I also don't see how to prevent that.

You can test for current->flags & PF_KTHREAD following the check for 
in_interrupt() and return true, it's what you were trying to do with the 
check for !current->mm.
--
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/