Re: [Experimental][PATCH 19/21] memcg-fix-pre-destroy.patch

From: Daisuke Nishimura
Date: Thu Dec 04 2008 - 04:36:47 EST

Added CC: Paul Menage <menage@xxxxxxxxxx>

> @@ -2096,7 +2112,7 @@ static void mem_cgroup_get(struct mem_cg
> static void mem_cgroup_put(struct mem_cgroup *mem)
> {
> if (atomic_dec_and_test(&mem->refcnt)) {
> - if (!mem->obsolete)
> + if (!css_under_removal(&mem->css))
> return;
> mem_cgroup_free(mem);
> }
I don't think it's safe to check css_under_removal here w/o cgroup_lock.
(It's safe *NOW* just because memcg is the only user of css->refcnt.)

As Li said before, css_under_removal doesn't necessarily mean
this this group has been destroyed, but mem_cgroup will be freed.

But adding cgroup_lock/unlock here causes another dead lock,
because mem_cgroup_get_next_node calls mem_cgroup_put.

hmm.. hierarchical reclaim code will be re-written completely by [21/21],
so would it be better to change patch order or to take another approach ?

Daisuke Nishimura.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at