On Wed 05-02-14 11:45:43, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 05, 2014 at 05:19:40PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Wed 05-02-14 10:28:21, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> > > Here is the only exception to the above: swapout records maintain
> > > permanent css references, so they prevent css_free() fr
On Wed, Feb 05, 2014 at 05:19:40PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Wed 05-02-14 10:28:21, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> > Here is the only exception to the above: swapout records maintain
> > permanent css references, so they prevent css_free() from running.
> > For that reason alone we should run one o
On Wed 05-02-14 17:19:40, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Wed 05-02-14 10:28:21, Johannes Weiner wrote:
[...]
> > I thought more about this and talked to Tejun as well. He told me
> > that the rcu grace period between disabling tryget and calling
> > css_offline() is currently an implementation detail of
Hello, Michal.
On Wed, Feb 05, 2014 at 05:19:40PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > Well, css_free() is the callback invoked when the ref counter hits 0,
> > and that is a guarantee. From a memcg perspective, it's the right
> > place to do reparenting, not css_offline().
>
> OK, it seems I've total
On Wed 05-02-14 10:28:21, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 05, 2014 at 02:38:34PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Tue 04-02-14 11:29:39, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> > [...]
> > > Maybe we should remove the XXX if it makes you think we should change
> > > the current situation by any means necess
Hello, guys.
On Wed, Feb 05, 2014 at 10:28:21AM -0500, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> I thought more about this and talked to Tejun as well. He told me
> that the rcu grace period between disabling tryget and calling
> css_offline() is currently an implementation detail of the refcounter
> that css use
On Wed, Feb 05, 2014 at 02:38:34PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Tue 04-02-14 11:29:39, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> [...]
> > Maybe we should remove the XXX if it makes you think we should change
> > the current situation by any means necessary. This patch is not an
> > improvement.
> >
> > I put t
On Tue 04-02-14 11:29:39, Johannes Weiner wrote:
[...]
> Maybe we should remove the XXX if it makes you think we should change
> the current situation by any means necessary. This patch is not an
> improvement.
>
> I put the XXX there so that we one day maybe refactor the code in a
> clean fashion
On Tue, Feb 04, 2014 at 02:28:58PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> The current charge path might race with memcg offlining because holding
> css reference doesn't neither prevent from task move to a different
> group nor stop css offline. When a charging task is the last one in the
> group and it is m
The current charge path might race with memcg offlining because holding
css reference doesn't neither prevent from task move to a different
group nor stop css offline. When a charging task is the last one in the
group and it is moved to a different group in the middle of the charge
the old memcg mi
10 matches
Mail list logo
