On Thu, Apr 30, 2020 at 9:46 AM Chris Down <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Yafang Shao writes: > >My concern is why we add these barriers to memcg protection > >specifically but don't add these barriers to the other memebers like > >memcg->oom_group which has the same issue ? > >What is the difference between these members and that members ? > > There are certainly more missing cases -- I didn't look at oom_group > specifically, but it sounds likely if there's not other mitigating factors. > Most of us have just been busy and haven't had time to comprehensively fix all > the potential store and load tears. > > Tearing is another case of something that would be nice to fix once and for all > in the memcg code, but isn't causing any significant issues for the timebeing. > We should certainly aim to avoid introducing any new tearing opportunities, > though :-) > > So the answer is just that improvement is incremental and we've not had the > time to track down and fix them all. If you find more cases, feel free to send > out the patches and I'll be happy to take a look. Thanks for your suggestion. I'm planning to add these barriers all over the memory cgroup code. -- Thanks Yafang
