On Fri, 23 Apr 2010 12:30:11 +0530 Balbir Singh <balbir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > * KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> [2010-04-23 13:03:49]: > > > On Fri, 23 Apr 2010 12:58:14 +0900 > > KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > On Fri, 23 Apr 2010 11:55:16 +0800 > > > Li Zefan <lizf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > Li Zefan wrote: > > > > > KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote: > > > > >> On Fri, 23 Apr 2010 11:00:41 +0800 > > > > >> Li Zefan <lizf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > >> > > > > >>> with CONFIG_PROVE_RCU=y, I saw this warning, it's because > > > > >>> css_id() is not under rcu_read_lock(). > > > > >>> > > > > >> Ok. Thank you for reporting. > > > > >> This is ok ? > > > > > > > > > > Yes, and I did some more simple tests on memcg, no more warning > > > > > showed up. > > > > > > > > > > > > > oops, after trigging oom, I saw 2 more warnings: > > > > > > > > > > Thank you for good testing. > > v3 here...sorry too rapid posting... > > > > Looking at the patch we seem to be protecting the use of only css_*(). > I wonder if we should push down the rcu_read_*lock() semnatics to the > css routines or is it just too instrusive to do it that way? > Maybe worth to consider for future patches for clean up. 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>