Re: [PATCH 2/2] memcg: coalescing charge by percpu (Oct/9)

[KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki]

Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Fri, 9 Oct 2009 17:01:05 +0900
> KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> +static void drain_all_stock_async(void)
>> +{
>> +	int cpu;
>> +	/* This function is for scheduling "drain" in asynchronous way.
>> +	 * The result of "drain" is not directly handled by callers. Then,
>> +	 * if someone is calling drain, we don't have to call drain more.
>> +	 * Anyway, work_pending() will catch if there is a race. We just do
>> +	 * loose check here.
>> +	 */
>> +	if (atomic_read(&memcg_drain_count))
>> +		return;
>> +	/* Notify other cpus that system-wide "drain" is running */
>> +	atomic_inc(&memcg_drain_count);
>> +	get_online_cpus();
>> +	for_each_online_cpu(cpu) {
>> +		struct memcg_stock_pcp *stock = &per_cpu(memcg_stock, cpu);
>> +		if (work_pending(&stock->work))
>> +			continue;
>> +		INIT_WORK(&stock->work, drain_local_stock);
>> +		schedule_work_on(cpu, &stock->work);
>> +	}
>> + 	put_online_cpus();
>> +	atomic_dec(&memcg_drain_count);
>> +	/* We don't wait for flush_work */
>> +}
>
> It's unusual to run INIT_WORK() each time we use a work_struct.
> Usually we will run INIT_WORK a single time, then just repeatedly use
> that structure.  Because after the work has completed, it is still in a
> ready-to-use state.
>
> Running INIT_WORK() repeatedly against the same work_struct adds a risk
> that we'll scribble on an in-use work_struct, which would make a big
> mess.
>
Ah, ok. I'll prepare a fix. (And I think atomic_dec/inc placement is not
very good....I'll do total review, again.)

Thank you for review.

Regards,
-Kame


--
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/