Re: [PATCH] mm: memcg: keep root group unchanged if fail to createnew

[Michal Hocko]

On Sun 11-12-11 15:39:43, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> On Sun, 11 Dec 2011, Hillf Danton wrote:
> 
> > If the request is not to create root group and we fail to meet it,
> > we'd leave the root unchanged.
> 
> I didn't understand that at first: please say "we should" rather
> than "we'd", which I take to be an abbreviation for "we would".
> 
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Hillf Danton <dhillf@xxxxxxxxx>
> 
> Yes indeed, well caught:
> Acked-by: Hugh Dickins <hughd@xxxxxxxxxx>
> 
> I wonder what was going through the author's mind when he wrote it
> that way?  I wonder if it's one of those bugs that creeps in when
> you start from a perfectly functional patch, then make refinements
> to suit feedback from reviewers.
> 
> On which topic: wouldn't this patch be better just to move the
> "root_mem_cgroup = memcg;" two lines lower down (and of course
> remove free_out's "root_mem_cgroup = NULL;" as you already did)?

Yes would look nicer.

> I can't see mem_cgroup_soft_limit_tree_init() relying on
> root_mem_cgroup at all.

It doesn't but it still needs some love to handle error case properly
AFAICS. We do not deallocate softlimit trees for nodes that succeeded.

[...]

Hilf could you update the patch please?
-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
SUSE LINUX s.r.o.
Lihovarska 1060/12
190 00 Praha 9    
Czech Republic
--
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/