Re: [-mm patch] Show memcg information during OOM

[David Rientjes]

On Tue, 3 Feb 2009, Balbir Singh wrote:

> > > > > diff --git a/mm/oom_kill.c b/mm/oom_kill.c
> > > > > index d3b9bac..b8e53ae 100644
> > > > > --- a/mm/oom_kill.c
> > > > > +++ b/mm/oom_kill.c
> > > > > @@ -392,6 +392,7 @@ static int oom_kill_process(struct task_struct *p, gfp_t gfp_mask, int order,
> > > > >  			current->comm, gfp_mask, order, current->oomkilladj);
> > > > >  		task_lock(current);
> > > > >  		cpuset_print_task_mems_allowed(current);
> > > > > +		mem_cgroup_print_mem_info(mem);
> > > > 
> > > > I think this can be put outside the task lock. The lock is used to call task_cs() safely in
> > > > cpuset_print_task_mems_allowed().
> > > >
> > > 
> > > Thanks, I'll work on that in the next version.
> > >  
> > 
> > I was also wondering about this and assumed that it was necessary to 
> > prevent the cgroup from disappearing during the oom.  If task_lock() isn't 
> > held, is the memcg->css.cgroup->dentry->d_name.name dereference always 
> > safe without rcu?
> >
> 
> oom_kill_process is called with tasklist_lock held (read-mode). That
> should suffice, no? The memcg cannot go away since it has other groups
> or tasks associated with it. 
> 

I don't see how this prevents a task from being reattached to a different 
cgroup and then a rmdir on memcg->css.cgroup would destroy the dentry 
without cgroup_mutex or dereferencing via rcu.
--
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/