Re: [PATCH] mm, memcg: fix wrong mem cgroup protection

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Fri 24-04-20 09:44:38, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 24, 2020 at 09:14:52AM -0400, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> > However, mem_cgroup_protected() never expected anybody to look at the
> > effective protection values when it indicated that the cgroup is above
> > its protection. As a result, a query during limit reclaim may return
> > stale protection values that were calculated by a previous reclaim
> > cycle in which the cgroup did have siblings.
> 
> Btw, I think there is opportunity to make this a bit less error prone.
> 
> We have a mem_cgroup_protected() that returns yes or no, essentially,
> but protection isn't a binary state anymore.
> 
> It's also been a bit iffy that it looks like a simple predicate
> function, but it indeed needs to run procedurally for each cgroup in
> order for the calculations throughout the tree to be correct.
> 
> It might be better to have a
> 
> 	mem_cgroup_calculate_protection()
> 
> that runs for every cgroup we visit and sets up the internal state;
> then have more self-explanatory query functions on top of that:
> 
> 	mem_cgroup_below_min()
> 	mem_cgroup_below_low()
> 	mem_cgroup_protection()
> 
> What do you guys think?

Fully agreed. I have to say that I have considered the predicate with
side effects really confusing.
-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs




[Index of Archives]     [Linux ARM Kernel]     [Linux ARM]     [Linux Omap]     [Fedora ARM]     [IETF Annouce]     [Bugtraq]     [Linux OMAP]     [Linux MIPS]     [eCos]     [Asterisk Internet PBX]     [Linux API]

  Powered by Linux