On Wed 10-03-21 12:11:26, Vasily Averin wrote: > On 3/9/21 5:57 PM, Michal Hocko wrote: > > On Tue 09-03-21 11:03:48, Vasily Averin wrote: > >> in_interrupt() check in memcg_kmem_bypass() is incorrect because > >> it does not allow to account memory allocation called from task context > >> with disabled BH, i.e. inside spin_lock_bh()/spin_unlock_bh() sections > > > > Is there any existing user in the tree? Or is this more of a preparatory > > patch for a later one which will need it? In other words, is this a bug > > fix or a preparatory work. > > struct fib6_node objects are allocated by this way > net/ipv6/route.c::__ip6_ins_rt() > ... write_lock_bh(&table->tb6_lock); > err = fib6_add(&table->tb6_root, rt, info, mxc); > write_unlock_bh(&table->tb6_lock); > > I spend some time to understand why properly entries from properly configured cache > was not accounted to container's memcg. OK, that is a valuable information. If there are no other users currently then I would recommend squashing this patch into the one which introduces accounting for fib6_node cache (patch 2, IIUC). -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs
