Re: [PATCH] memcg: fix multiple large threshold notifications

[Johannes Weiner]

On Sat, Aug 31, 2013 at 05:06:42PM -0700, Greg Thelen wrote:
> A memory cgroup with (1) multiple threshold notifications and (2) at
> least one threshold >=2G was not reliable.  Specifically the
> notifications would either not fire or would not fire in the proper
> order.
> 
> The __mem_cgroup_threshold() signaling logic depends on keeping 64 bit
> thresholds in sorted order.  mem_cgroup_usage_register_event() sorts
> them with compare_thresholds(), which returns the difference of two 64
> bit thresholds as an int.  If the difference is positive but has
> bit[31] set, then sort() treats the difference as negative and breaks
> sort order.
> 
> This fix compares the two arbitrary 64 bit thresholds returning the
> classic -1, 0, 1 result.
> 
> The test below sets two notifications (at 0x1000 and 0x81001000):
>   cd /sys/fs/cgroup/memory
>   mkdir x
>   for x in 4096 2164264960; do
>     cgroup_event_listener x/memory.usage_in_bytes $x | sed "s/^/$x listener:/" &
>   done
>   echo $$ > x/cgroup.procs
>   anon_leaker 500M
> 
> v3.11-rc7 fails to signal the 4096 event listener:
>   Leaking...
>   Done leaking pages.
> 
> Patched v3.11-rc7 properly notifies:
>   Leaking...
>   4096 listener:2013:8:31:14:13:36
>   Done leaking pages.
> 
> The fixed bug is old.  It appears to date back to the introduction of
> memcg threshold notifications in v2.6.34-rc1-116-g2e72b6347c94 "memcg:
> implement memory thresholds"
> 
> Signed-off-by: Greg Thelen <gthelen@xxxxxxxxxx>

Acked-by: Johannes Weiner <hannes@xxxxxxxxxxx>
--
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/