Re: [PATCH 00/23] slab+slub accounting for memcg

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On 04/30/2012 06:43 PM, Suleiman Souhlal wrote:
I am leaving destruction of caches out of the series, although most
>  of the infrastructure for that is here, since we did it in earlier
>  series. This is basically because right now Kame is reworking it for
>  user memcg, and I like the new proposed behavior a lot more. We all seemed
>  to have agreed that reclaim is an interesting problem by itself, and
>  is not included in this already too complicated series. Please note
>  that this is still marked as experimental, so we have so room. A proper
>  shrinker implementation is a hard requirement to take the kmem controller
>  out of the experimental state.
We will have to be careful for cache destruction.
I found several races between allocation and destruction, in my patchset.

I think we should consider doing the uncharging of kmem when
destroying a memcg in mem_cgroup_destroy() instead of in
pre_destroy(), because it's still possible that there are threads in
the cgroup while pre_destroy() is being called (or for threads to be
moved into the cgroup).

I found some problems here as well.
I am trying to work ontop of what Kamezawa posted for pre_destroy() rework. I have one or two incorrect uncharging issues to solve, that's actually what is holding me for posting a new version.

expected soon

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe cgroups" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html


[Index of Archives]     [Linux ARM Kernel]     [Linux ARM]     [Linux Omap]     [Fedora ARM]     [IETF Annouce]     [Security]     [Bugtraq]     [Linux OMAP]     [Linux MIPS]     [eCos]     [Asterisk Internet PBX]     [Linux API]     [Monitors]

  Powered by Linux