Re: [PATCH 00/23] slab+slub accounting for memcg

[Glauber Costa]

On 04/30/2012 06:43 PM, Suleiman Souhlal wrote:
> > I am leaving destruction of caches out of the series, although most
> > >  of the infrastructure for that is here, since we did it in earlier
> > >  series. This is basically because right now Kame is reworking it for
> > >  user memcg, and I like the new proposed behavior a lot more. We all seemed
> > >  to have agreed that reclaim is an interesting problem by itself, and
> > >  is not included in this already too complicated series. Please note
> > >  that this is still marked as experimental, so we have so room. A proper
> > >  shrinker implementation is a hard requirement to take the kmem controller
> > >  out of the experimental state.
> We will have to be careful for cache destruction.
> I found several races between allocation and destruction, in my patchset.
>
> I think we should consider doing the uncharging of kmem when
> destroying a memcg in mem_cgroup_destroy() instead of in
> pre_destroy(), because it's still possible that there are threads in
> the cgroup while pre_destroy() is being called (or for threads to be
> moved into the cgroup).

I found some problems here as well.
I am trying to work ontop of what Kamezawa posted for pre_destroy() 
rework. I have one or two incorrect uncharging issues to solve, that's 
actually what is holding me for posting a new version.

expected soon

--
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/