On 09/22/2011 03:01 AM, Greg Thelen wrote:
On Sun, Sep 18, 2011 at 5:56 PM, Glauber Costa<glommer@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:+static inline bool mem_cgroup_is_root(struct mem_cgroup *mem) +{ + return (mem == root_mem_cgroup); +} +Why are you adding a copy of mem_cgroup_is_root(). I see one already in v3.0. Was it deleted in a previous patch?
Already answered by another good samaritan.
+static int tcp_write_maxmem(struct cgroup *cgrp, struct cftype *cft, u64 val) +{ + struct mem_cgroup *sg = mem_cgroup_from_cont(cgrp); + struct mem_cgroup *parent = parent_mem_cgroup(sg); + struct net *net = current->nsproxy->net_ns; + int i; + + if (!cgroup_lock_live_group(cgrp)) + return -ENODEV;Why is cgroup_lock_live_cgroup() needed here? Does it protect updates to sg->tcp_prot_mem[*]?+static u64 tcp_read_maxmem(struct cgroup *cgrp, struct cftype *cft) +{ + struct mem_cgroup *sg = mem_cgroup_from_cont(cgrp); + u64 ret; + + if (!cgroup_lock_live_group(cgrp)) + return -ENODEV;Why is cgroup_lock_live_cgroup() needed here? Does it protect updates to sg->tcp_max_memory?
No, that is not my understanding. My understanding is this lock is needed to protect against the cgroup just disappearing under our nose.
The task reading/writing it is not necessarily inside the cgroup (usually it is not...), so the mere fact of opening the file does not guarantee the cgroup will be kept alive. So we can grab a pointer - cgroup exists - and write to it - cgroup does not exist.
Or am I missing something ? -- 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/ . Fight unfair telecom internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/ Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>