Re: [patch for-3.12] mm, memcg: protect mem_cgroup_read_events for cpu hotplug

2013-10-01 Thread David Rientjes
On Tue, 1 Oct 2013, Johannes Weiner wrote: > On Tue, Oct 01, 2013 at 04:31:23PM -0700, David Rientjes wrote: > > for_each_online_cpu() needs the protection of {get,put}_online_cpus() so > > cpu_online_mask doesn't change during the iteration. > > There is no problem report here. > > Is there a c

Re: [patch for-3.12] mm, memcg: protect mem_cgroup_read_events for cpu hotplug

2013-10-01 Thread Johannes Weiner
On Tue, Oct 01, 2013 at 04:31:23PM -0700, David Rientjes wrote: > for_each_online_cpu() needs the protection of {get,put}_online_cpus() so > cpu_online_mask doesn't change during the iteration. There is no problem report here. Is there a crash? If it's just accuracy of the read, why would we car

Re: [patch for-3.12] mm, memcg: protect mem_cgroup_read_events for cpu hotplug

2013-10-01 Thread KOSAKI Motohiro
(10/1/13 7:31 PM), David Rientjes wrote: for_each_online_cpu() needs the protection of {get,put}_online_cpus() so cpu_online_mask doesn't change during the iteration. Signed-off-by: David Rientjes Acked-by: KOSAKI Motohiro -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-k

[patch for-3.12] mm, memcg: protect mem_cgroup_read_events for cpu hotplug

2013-10-01 Thread David Rientjes
for_each_online_cpu() needs the protection of {get,put}_online_cpus() so cpu_online_mask doesn't change during the iteration. Signed-off-by: David Rientjes --- mm/memcontrol.c | 2 ++ 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+) diff --git a/mm/memcontrol.c b/mm/memcontrol.c --- a/mm/memcontrol.c +++ b/mm/m