Hi, Kame.
On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 9:23 AM, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
<kamezawa.hiroyu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 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.
Vivek mentioned memcg is protected by RCU if I understand his intention right.
So I commented that without enough knowledge of memcg.
After your comment, I dive into the code.
Just out of curiosity.
Really, memcg is protected by RCU?
I think most of RCU around memcg is for protecting task_struct and
cgroup_subsys_state.
The memcg is protected by cgroup_mutex as you mentioned.
Am I missing something?
> Thanks,
> -Kame
>
>
>
--
Kind regards,
Minchan Kim
_______________________________________________
Containers mailing list
Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
