On Fri, 26 Feb 2010 00:36:15 +0900
Minchan Kim <minchan.kim@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 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?
>
Hm ? I don't read the whole thread but can_attach() is called under
cgroup_mutex(). So, it doesn't need to use RCU.
Thanks,
-Kame
_______________________________________________
Containers mailing list
Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
