Re: [PATCH RFC] hugetlb_cgroup: fix unbalanced css_put for shared mappings

2021-02-09 Thread Miaohe Lin
Hi: On 2021/2/10 2:56, Mike Kravetz wrote: > On 2/8/21 7:27 PM, Miaohe Lin wrote: >> On 2021/2/9 3:52, Mike Kravetz wrote: >>> On 1/23/21 1:31 AM, Miaohe Lin wrote: The current implementation of hugetlb_cgroup for shared mappings could have different behavior. Consider the following two s

Re: [PATCH RFC] hugetlb_cgroup: fix unbalanced css_put for shared mappings

2021-02-09 Thread Mike Kravetz
On 2/8/21 7:27 PM, Miaohe Lin wrote: > On 2021/2/9 3:52, Mike Kravetz wrote: >> On 1/23/21 1:31 AM, Miaohe Lin wrote: >>> The current implementation of hugetlb_cgroup for shared mappings could have >>> different behavior. Consider the following two scenarios: >>> >>> 1.Assume initial css reference

Re: [PATCH RFC] hugetlb_cgroup: fix unbalanced css_put for shared mappings

2021-02-08 Thread Miaohe Lin
On 2021/2/9 3:52, Mike Kravetz wrote: > On 1/23/21 1:31 AM, Miaohe Lin wrote: >> The current implementation of hugetlb_cgroup for shared mappings could have >> different behavior. Consider the following two scenarios: >> >> 1.Assume initial css reference count of hugetlb_cgroup is 1: >> 1.1 Call

Re: [PATCH RFC] hugetlb_cgroup: fix unbalanced css_put for shared mappings

2021-02-08 Thread Mike Kravetz
On 1/23/21 1:31 AM, Miaohe Lin wrote: > The current implementation of hugetlb_cgroup for shared mappings could have > different behavior. Consider the following two scenarios: > > 1.Assume initial css reference count of hugetlb_cgroup is 1: > 1.1 Call hugetlb_reserve_pages with from = 1, to = 2.

[PATCH RFC] hugetlb_cgroup: fix unbalanced css_put for shared mappings

2021-01-23 Thread Miaohe Lin
The current implementation of hugetlb_cgroup for shared mappings could have different behavior. Consider the following two scenarios: 1.Assume initial css reference count of hugetlb_cgroup is 1: 1.1 Call hugetlb_reserve_pages with from = 1, to = 2. So css reference count is 2 associated with 1 f