On Sat, 24 Sep 2011 10:30:42 -0300
Glauber Costa <glommer@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 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.
>
Hm. reference count of dentry for cgroup isn't enough ?
Thanks,
-Kame
--
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>