On Mon, 15 Mar 2010 14:50:13 -0700
Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Fri, 12 Mar 2010 14:31:37 +0900
> KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > +static int memcg_oom_wake_function(wait_queue_t *wait,
> > + unsigned mode, int sync, void *arg)
> > +{
> > + struct mem_cgroup *wake_mem = (struct mem_cgroup *)arg;
> > + struct oom_wait_info *oom_wait_info;
> > +
> > + /* both of oom_wait_info->mem and wake_mem are stable under us */
> > + oom_wait_info = container_of(wait, struct oom_wait_info, wait);
> > +
> > + if (oom_wait_info->mem == wake_mem)
> > + goto wakeup;
> > + /* if no hierarchy, no match */
> > + if (!oom_wait_info->mem->use_hierarchy || !wake_mem->use_hierarchy)
> > + return 0;
> > + /* check hierarchy */
> > + if (!css_is_ancestor(&oom_wait_info->mem->css, &wake_mem->css) &&
> > + !css_is_ancestor(&wake_mem->css, &oom_wait_info->mem->css))
> > + return 0;
> > +
> > +wakeup:
> > + return autoremove_wake_function(wait, mode, sync, arg);
> > +}
>
> What are the locking rules for calling css_is_ancestor()?
css_is_ancestor is checking css->id (and hierarchy stack). What we need here is
to guarantee css is valid object.
Here, we have reference count of both of oom_wait_info->mem and wake_mem.
Then, ->css is always vaild and it's "id" is stable under us.
Hmm, maybe this comment is too short.
/* both of oom_wait_info->mem and wake_mem are stable under us */
I'll prepare some update.
Thanks,
-Kame
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxx For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>