On Sat, Sep 20, 2014 at 04:00:35PM -0400, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> On cgroup deletion, outstanding page cache charges are moved to the
> parent group so that they're not lost and can be reclaimed during
> pressure on/inside said parent. But this reparenting is fairly tricky
> and its synchroneous nature has led to several lock-ups in the past.
>
> Since css iterators now also include offlined css, memcg iterators can
> be changed to include offlined children during reclaim of a group, and
> leftover cache can just stay put.
>
> There is a slight change of behavior in that charges of deleted groups
> no longer show up as local charges in the parent. But they are still
> included in the parent's hierarchical statistics.
>
> Signed-off-by: Johannes Weiner <han...@cmpxchg.org>
> ---
> mm/memcontrol.c | 260
> ++------------------------------------------------------
> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 255 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/mm/memcontrol.c b/mm/memcontrol.c
> index 019a44ac25d6..48531433a2fc 100644
> --- a/mm/memcontrol.c
> +++ b/mm/memcontrol.c
> @@ -736,8 +736,6 @@ static void disarm_static_keys(struct mem_cgroup *memcg)
> disarm_kmem_keys(memcg);
> }
>
> -static void drain_all_stock_async(struct mem_cgroup *memcg);
> -
> static struct mem_cgroup_per_zone *
> mem_cgroup_zone_zoneinfo(struct mem_cgroup *memcg, struct zone *zone)
> {
> @@ -1208,7 +1206,7 @@ struct mem_cgroup *mem_cgroup_iter(struct mem_cgroup
> *root,
> goto out_unlock;
> continue;
> }
> - if (css == &root->css || css_tryget_online(css)) {
> + if (css == &root->css || css_tryget(css)) {
> memcg = mem_cgroup_from_css(css);
> break;
> }
> @@ -2349,10 +2347,12 @@ static void refill_stock(struct mem_cgroup *memcg,
> unsigned int nr_pages)
> * of the hierarchy under it. sync flag says whether we should block
Please update the comment.
> * until the work is done.
> */
> -static void drain_all_stock(struct mem_cgroup *root_memcg, bool sync)
> +static void drain_all_stock(struct mem_cgroup *root_memcg)
> {
> int cpu, curcpu;
>
> + if (!mutex_trylock(&percpu_charge_mutex))
> + return;
It's not obvious why we need it here. The old code has an explanatory
comment. Could you please add one?
Thanks,
Vladimir
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
