On Thu 17-09-20 06:59:00, Miaohe Lin wrote:
> Since commit 79dfdaccd1d5 ("memcg: make oom_lock 0 and 1 based rather than
> counter"), the mem_cgroup_unmark_under_oom() is added and the comment of
> the mem_cgroup_oom_unlock() is moved here. But this comment make no sense
> here because mem_cgroup_oom_lock() does not operate on under_oom field.
OK, so I've looked into this more deeply and I finally remember why we
have this comment here. The point is that under_oom shouldn't underflow
and that we have to explicitly check for > 0 because a new child memcg
could have been added between mem_cgroup_mark_under_oom and
mem_cgroup_unmark_under_oom.
So the comment makes sense although it is not as helpful as it could be.
I think that changing it to the following will be more usefule
/*
* Be careful about under_oom underflows becase a child memcg
* could have neem added after mem_cgroup_mark_under_oom
*/
>
> Signed-off-by: Miaohe Lin <[email protected]>
> ---
> mm/memcontrol.c | 4 ----
> 1 file changed, 4 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/mm/memcontrol.c b/mm/memcontrol.c
> index cd5f83de9a6f..e44f5afaf78b 100644
> --- a/mm/memcontrol.c
> +++ b/mm/memcontrol.c
> @@ -1848,10 +1848,6 @@ static void mem_cgroup_unmark_under_oom(struct
> mem_cgroup *memcg)
> {
> struct mem_cgroup *iter;
>
> - /*
> - * When a new child is created while the hierarchy is under oom,
> - * mem_cgroup_oom_lock() may not be called. Watch for underflow.
> - */
> spin_lock(&memcg_oom_lock);
> for_each_mem_cgroup_tree(iter, memcg)
> if (iter->under_oom > 0)
> --
> 2.19.1
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
