KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote:
> How about this one ?
> tested on x86-64 + mmotm-Nov10, works well.
> (test on other arch is welcome.)
>
> -Kame
> ==
> As Jan Blunck <jblunck@xxxxxxx> pointed out, allocating
> per-cpu stat for memcg to the size of NR_CPUS is not good.
>
> This patch changes mem_cgroup's cpustat allocation not based
> on NR_CPUS but based on nr_cpu_ids.
>
> From: Jan Blunck <jblunck@xxxxxxx>
> Signed-off-by: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> ---
> mm/memcontrol.c | 34 ++++++++++++++++++----------------
> 1 file changed, 18 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-)
>
> Index: mmotm-2.6.28-Nov10/mm/memcontrol.c
> ===================================================================
> --- mmotm-2.6.28-Nov10.orig/mm/memcontrol.c
> +++ mmotm-2.6.28-Nov10/mm/memcontrol.c
> @@ -60,7 +60,7 @@ struct mem_cgroup_stat_cpu {
> } ____cacheline_aligned_in_smp;
>
> struct mem_cgroup_stat {
> - struct mem_cgroup_stat_cpu cpustat[NR_CPUS];
> + struct mem_cgroup_stat_cpu cpustat[0];
> };
>
> /*
> @@ -129,11 +129,10 @@ struct mem_cgroup {
>
> int prev_priority; /* for recording reclaim priority */
> /*
> - * statistics.
> + * statistics. This must be placed at the end of memcg.
> */
> struct mem_cgroup_stat stat;
> };
> -static struct mem_cgroup init_mem_cgroup;
>
> enum charge_type {
> MEM_CGROUP_CHARGE_TYPE_CACHE = 0,
> @@ -1292,42 +1291,45 @@ static void free_mem_cgroup_per_zone_inf
> kfree(mem->info.nodeinfo[node]);
> }
>
> +static int mem_cgroup_size(void)
inline this function?
Other than that, I think the cont->parent check for freeing has already been
spotted and pointed out
--
Balbir
_______________________________________________
Containers mailing list
Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
