On Tue, 13 Mar 2012 14:47:05 -0700, Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Mar 2012 12:37:11 +0530
> "Aneesh Kumar K.V" <aneesh.kumar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > From: "Aneesh Kumar K.V" <aneesh.kumar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > This add support for memcg removal with HugeTLB resource usage.
> >
> > ...
> >
> > +int hugetlb_force_memcg_empty(struct cgroup *cgroup)
>
> It's useful to document things, you know. For a major function like
> this, a nice little description of why it exists, what its role is,
> etc. Programming is not just an act of telling a computer what to do:
> it is also an act of telling other programmers what you wished the
> computer to do. Both are important, and the latter deserves care.
>
Will do.
> > +{
> > + struct hstate *h;
> > + struct page *page;
> > + int ret = 0, idx = 0;
> > +
> > + do {
> > + if (cgroup_task_count(cgroup) || !list_empty(&cgroup->children))
> > + goto out;
> > + if (signal_pending(current)) {
> > + ret = -EINTR;
> > + goto out;
> > + }
>
> Why is its behaviour altered by signal_pending()? This seems broken.
If the task that is doing a cgroup_rmdir got a signal we don't really
need to loop till the hugetlb resource usage become zero.
>
> > + for_each_hstate(h) {
> > + spin_lock(&hugetlb_lock);
> > + list_for_each_entry(page, &h->hugepage_activelist, lru) {
> > + ret = mem_cgroup_move_hugetlb_parent(idx, cgroup, page);
> > + if (ret) {
> > + spin_unlock(&hugetlb_lock);
> > + goto out;
> > + }
> > + }
> > + spin_unlock(&hugetlb_lock);
> > + idx++;
> > + }
> > + cond_resched();
> > + } while (mem_cgroup_hugetlb_usage(cgroup) > 0);
> > +out:
> > + return ret;
> > +}
-aneesh
--
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>