Re: [PATCH] memcg, oom: lock mem_cgroup_print_oom_info

[David Rientjes]

On Thu, 12 Dec 2013, Michal Hocko wrote:

> > > diff --git a/mm/memcontrol.c b/mm/memcontrol.c
> > > index 28c9221b74ea..c72b03bf9679 100644
> > > --- a/mm/memcontrol.c
> > > +++ b/mm/memcontrol.c
> > > @@ -1647,13 +1647,13 @@ static void move_unlock_mem_cgroup(struct mem_cgroup *memcg,
> > >   */
> > >  void mem_cgroup_print_oom_info(struct mem_cgroup *memcg, struct task_struct *p)
> > >  {
> > > -	struct cgroup *task_cgrp;
> > > -	struct cgroup *mem_cgrp;
> > >  	/*
> > > -	 * Need a buffer in BSS, can't rely on allocations. The code relies
> > > -	 * on the assumption that OOM is serialized for memory controller.
> > > -	 * If this assumption is broken, revisit this code.
> > > +	 * protects memcg_name and makes sure that parallel ooms do not
> > > +	 * interleave
> > 
> > Parallel memcg oom kills can happen in disjoint memcg hierarchies, this 
> > just prevents the printing of the statistics from interleaving.  I'm not 
> > sure if that's clear from this comment.
> 
> What about this instead:
> 	* Protects memcg_name and makes sure that ooms from parallel
> 	* hierarchies do not interleave.
> ?

I think it would be better to explicitly say that you're referring only to 
the printing here and that we're ensuring it does not interleave in the 
kernel log.
--
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/