On Wed 30-11-16 13:16:53, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> Hi Michael,
>
> On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 06:00:40PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
[...]
> > diff --git a/mm/workingset.c b/mm/workingset.c
> > index 617475f529f4..0f07522c5c0e 100644
> > --- a/mm/workingset.c
> > +++ b/mm/workingset.c
> > @@ -348,7 +348,7 @@ static unsigned long count_shadow_nodes(struct shrinker *shrinker,
> > shadow_nodes = list_lru_shrink_count(&workingset_shadow_nodes, sc);
> > local_irq_enable();
> >
> > - if (memcg_kmem_enabled()) {
> > + if (memcg_kmem_enabled() && sc->memcg) {
> > pages = mem_cgroup_node_nr_lru_pages(sc->memcg, sc->nid,
> > LRU_ALL_FILE);
> > } else {
>
> If we do that, I'd remove the racy memcg_kmem_enabled() check
> altogether and just check for whether we have a memcg or not.
But that would make this a memcg aware shrinker even when kmem is not
enabled...
But now that I am looking into the code
shrink_slab:
if (memcg_kmem_enabled() &&
!!memcg != !!(shrinker->flags & SHRINKER_MEMCG_AWARE))
continue;
this should be taken care of already. So sc->memcg should be indeed
sufficient. So unless I am missing something I will respin my local
patch and post it later after the reporter has some time to test the
current one.
> What do you think, Vladimir?
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>