On Wed 03-04-13 16:37:53, Li Zefan wrote:
> >>> But memcg_update_cache_sizes calls memcg_kmem_clear_activated on the
> >>> error path.
> >>>
> >>
> >> But memcg_kmem_mark_dead() checks the ACCOUNT flag not the ACCOUNTED flag.
> >> Am I missing something?
> >>
> >
> > Dang. You are right! Glauber,
>>> But memcg_update_cache_sizes calls memcg_kmem_clear_activated on the
>>> error path.
>>>
>>
>> But memcg_kmem_mark_dead() checks the ACCOUNT flag not the ACCOUNTED flag.
>> Am I missing something?
>>
>
> Dang. You are right! Glauber, is there any reason why
> memcg_kmem_mark_dead checks only
On 04/03/2013 12:18 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> Dang. You are right! Glauber, is there any reason why
> memcg_kmem_mark_dead checks only KMEM_ACCOUNTED_ACTIVE rather than
> KMEM_ACCOUNTED_MASK?
>
> This all is very confusing to say the least.
Yes, it is.
In kmemcg we need to differentiate between
On Wed 03-04-13 15:49:06, Li Zefan wrote:
> On 2013/4/3 15:43, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Wed 03-04-13 11:49:29, Li Zefan wrote:
> 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
> >>>
On 04/02/2013 07:04 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> 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
On 2013/4/3 15:43, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Wed 03-04-13 11:49:29, Li Zefan wrote:
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
On Wed 03-04-13 11:49:29, Li Zefan wrote:
> >> 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
On Wed 03-04-13 11:49:29, Li Zefan wrote:
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
On 2013/4/3 15:43, Michal Hocko wrote:
On Wed 03-04-13 11:49:29, Li Zefan wrote:
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
On 04/02/2013 07:04 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
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
On Wed 03-04-13 15:49:06, Li Zefan wrote:
On 2013/4/3 15:43, Michal Hocko wrote:
On Wed 03-04-13 11:49:29, Li Zefan wrote:
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
On 04/03/2013 12:18 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
Dang. You are right! Glauber, is there any reason why
memcg_kmem_mark_dead checks only KMEM_ACCOUNTED_ACTIVE rather than
KMEM_ACCOUNTED_MASK?
This all is very confusing to say the least.
Yes, it is.
In kmemcg we need to differentiate between
But memcg_update_cache_sizes calls memcg_kmem_clear_activated on the
error path.
But memcg_kmem_mark_dead() checks the ACCOUNT flag not the ACCOUNTED flag.
Am I missing something?
Dang. You are right! Glauber, is there any reason why
memcg_kmem_mark_dead checks only
On Wed 03-04-13 16:37:53, Li Zefan wrote:
But memcg_update_cache_sizes calls memcg_kmem_clear_activated on the
error path.
But memcg_kmem_mark_dead() checks the ACCOUNT flag not the ACCOUNTED flag.
Am I missing something?
Dang. You are right! Glauber, is there any reason why
>> 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.
>
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
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
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.
---
From
18 matches
Mail list logo
