On 2024/5/14 22:09, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Tue 14-05-24 13:11:06, Xiu Jianfeng wrote:
>> The event_list for memcg is only valid for v1 and not used for v2,
>> so it's unnessesary to handle event_list for v2.
>
> You are right but the code as is works just fine. The list will be
> empty. It is true that we do not need to take event_list_lock lock but
> nobody should be using this lock anyway. Also the offline callback is
> not particularly hot path. So why do we want to change the code?
>
Actually, I don’t quite agree, but I don't insist on this patch.
Thanks for your feedback.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Xiu Jianfeng <xiujianfeng@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>> mm/memcontrol.c | 12 +++++++-----
>> 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/mm/memcontrol.c b/mm/memcontrol.c
>> index d127c9c5fabf..4254f9cd05f4 100644
>> --- a/mm/memcontrol.c
>> +++ b/mm/memcontrol.c
>> @@ -5881,12 +5881,14 @@ static void mem_cgroup_css_offline(struct cgroup_subsys_state *css)
>> * Notify userspace about cgroup removing only after rmdir of cgroup
>> * directory to avoid race between userspace and kernelspace.
>> */
>> - spin_lock_irq(&memcg->event_list_lock);
>> - list_for_each_entry_safe(event, tmp, &memcg->event_list, list) {
>> - list_del_init(&event->list);
>> - schedule_work(&event->remove);
>> + if (!cgroup_subsys_on_dfl(memory_cgrp_subsys)) {
>> + spin_lock_irq(&memcg->event_list_lock);
>> + list_for_each_entry_safe(event, tmp, &memcg->event_list, list) {
>> + list_del_init(&event->list);
>> + schedule_work(&event->remove);
>> + }
>> + spin_unlock_irq(&memcg->event_list_lock);
>> }
>> - spin_unlock_irq(&memcg->event_list_lock);
>>
>> page_counter_set_min(&memcg->memory, 0);
>> page_counter_set_low(&memcg->memory, 0);
>> --
>> 2.34.1
>
