[PATCH -v2] memcg: don't do cleanup manually ifmem_cgroup_css_online() fails

From: Michal Hocko
Date: Tue Apr 02 2013 - 11:04:31 EST


On Tue 02-04-13 18:33:30, Glauber Costa wrote:
> On 04/02/2013 06:28 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Tue 02-04-13 18:20:56, Glauber Costa wrote:
> >> On 04/02/2013 06:16 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> >>> mem_cgroup_css_online
> >>> memcg_init_kmem
> >>> mem_cgroup_get # refcnt = 2
> >>> memcg_update_all_caches
> >>> memcg_update_cache_size # fails with ENOMEM
> >>
> >> Here is the thing: this one in kmem only happens for kmem enabled
> >> memcgs. For those, we tend to do a get once, and put only when the last
> >> kmem reference is gone.
> >>
> >> For non-kmem memcgs, refcnt will be 1 here, and will be balanced out by
> >> the mem_cgroup_put() in css_free.
> >
> > So we need this, right?
> > ---
> > diff --git a/mm/memcontrol.c b/mm/memcontrol.c
> > index f608546..2ef875d 100644
> > --- a/mm/memcontrol.c
> > +++ b/mm/memcontrol.c
> > @@ -5306,6 +5306,8 @@ static int memcg_propagate_kmem(struct mem_cgroup *memcg)
> > ret = memcg_update_cache_sizes(memcg);
> > mutex_unlock(&set_limit_mutex);
> > out:
> > + if (ret)
> > + mem_cgroup_put(memcg);
> > return ret;
> > }
> > #endif /* CONFIG_MEMCG_KMEM */
> > @@ -6417,16 +6419,6 @@ mem_cgroup_css_online(struct cgroup *cont)
> >
> > error = memcg_init_kmem(memcg, &mem_cgroup_subsys);
> > mutex_unlock(&memcg_create_mutex);
> > - if (error) {
> > - /*
> > - * We call put now because our (and parent's) refcnts
> > - * are already in place. mem_cgroup_put() will internally
> > - * call __mem_cgroup_free, so return directly
> > - */
> > - mem_cgroup_put(memcg);
> > - if (parent->use_hierarchy)
> > - mem_cgroup_put(parent);
> > - }
> > return error;
> > }
> >
> >
> Yes, indeed you are very right - and thanks for looking at such depth.

So what about the patch bellow? It seems that I provoked all this mess
but my brain managed to push it away so I do not remember why I thought
the parent needs reference drop... It is "only" 3.9 thing fortunately.
---