Re: [PATCH RFC] memcg: fix drain_all_stock crash
From: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
Date: Tue Aug 09 2011 - 06:00:41 EST
On Tue, 9 Aug 2011 11:45:03 +0200
Michal Hocko <mhocko@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Tue 09-08-11 18:32:16, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote:
> > On Tue, 9 Aug 2011 11:31:50 +0200
> > Michal Hocko <mhocko@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > What do you think about the half backed patch bellow? I didn't manage to
> > > test it yet but I guess it should help. I hate asymmetry of drain_lock
> > > locking (it is acquired somewhere else than it is released which is
> > > not). I will think about a nicer way how to do it.
> > > Maybe I should also split the rcu part in a separate patch.
> > >
> > > What do you think?
> > I'd like to revert 8521fc50 first and consider total design change
> > rather than ad-hoc fix.
> Agreed. Revert should go into 3.0 stable as well. Although the global
> mutex is buggy we have that behavior for a long time without any reports.
> We should address it but it can wait for 3.2.
What "buggy" means here ? "problematic" or "cause OOps ?"
> > Personally, I don't like to have spin-lock in per-cpu area.
> spinlock is not that different from what we already have with the bit
maybe. The best is lockless style...but pointer in percpu cache is problem..
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/