Hi
On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 8:58 PM, Andrea Righi <arighi@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 01:07:32PM -0500, Vivek Goyal wrote:
>> > > > +unsigned long mem_cgroup_dirty_bytes(void)
>> > > > +{
>> > > > + struct mem_cgroup *memcg;
>> > > > + unsigned long dirty_bytes;
>> > > > +
>> > > > + if (mem_cgroup_disabled())
>> > > > + return vm_dirty_bytes;
>> > > > +
>> > > > + rcu_read_lock();
>> > > > + memcg = mem_cgroup_from_task(current);
>> > > > + if (memcg == NULL)
>> > > > + dirty_bytes = vm_dirty_bytes;
>> > > > + else
>> > > > + dirty_bytes = get_dirty_bytes(memcg);
>> > > > + rcu_read_unlock();
>> > >
>> > > The rcu_read_lock() isn't protecting anything here.
>> >
>> > Right!
>>
>> Are we not protecting "memcg" pointer using rcu here?
>
> Vivek, you are right:
>
> mem_cgroup_from_task() -> task_subsys_state() -> rcu_dereference()
>
> So, this *must* be RCU protected.
So, Doesn't mem_cgroup_from_task in mem_cgroup_can_attach need RCU, too?
--
Kind regards,
Minchan Kim
_______________________________________________
Containers mailing list
Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
