On 22/02/2017 18:11, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Wed 22-02-17 16:58:11, Laurent Dufour wrote:
> [...]
>> static struct mem_cgroup_tree_per_node *
>> soft_limit_tree_node(int nid)
>> {
>> @@ -465,6 +497,8 @@ static void mem_cgroup_update_tree(struct mem_cgroup *memcg, struct page *page)
>> struct mem_cgroup_tree_per_node *mctz;
>>
>> mctz = soft_limit_tree_from_page(page);
>> + if (!mctz)
>> + return;
>> /*
>> * Necessary to update all ancestors when hierarchy is used.
>> * because their event counter is not touched.
>> @@ -502,7 +536,8 @@ static void mem_cgroup_remove_from_trees(struct mem_cgroup *memcg)
>> for_each_node(nid) {
>> mz = mem_cgroup_nodeinfo(memcg, nid);
>> mctz = soft_limit_tree_node(nid);
>> - mem_cgroup_remove_exceeded(mz, mctz);
>> + if (mctz)
>> + mem_cgroup_remove_exceeded(mz, mctz);
>> }
>> }
>>
>
> this belongs to the previous patch, right?
It may. I made the first patch fixing the panic I saw but if you prefer
this to be part of the first one, fair enough.
Tell me what you like.
--
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>
