2012/4/26 KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
> When force_empty() called by ->pre_destroy(), no memory reclaim happens
> and it doesn't take very long time which requires signal_pending() check.
> And if we return -EINTR from pre_destroy(), cgroup.c show warning.
>
> This patch removes signal check in force_empty(). By this, ->pre_destroy()
> returns success always.
>
> Note: check for 'cgroup is empty' remains for force_empty interface.
>
> Signed-off-by: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> mm/hugetlb.c | 10 +---------
> mm/memcontrol.c | 14 +++++---------
> 2 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 18 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/mm/hugetlb.c b/mm/hugetlb.c
> index 4dd6b39..770f1642 100644
> --- a/mm/hugetlb.c
> +++ b/mm/hugetlb.c
> @@ -1922,20 +1922,12 @@ int hugetlb_force_memcg_empty(struct cgroup *cgroup)
> int ret = 0, idx = 0;
>
> do {
> + /* see memcontrol.c::mem_cgroup_force_empty() */
> if (cgroup_task_count(cgroup)
> || !list_empty(&cgroup->children)) {
> ret = -EBUSY;
> goto out;
> }
> - /*
> - * If the task doing the cgroup_rmdir got a signal
> - * we don't really need to loop till the hugetlb resource
> - * usage become zero.
> - */
> - if (signal_pending(current)) {
> - ret = -EINTR;
> - goto out;
> - }
> for_each_hstate(h) {
> spin_lock(&hugetlb_lock);
> list_for_each_entry(page, &h->hugepage_activelist, lru) {
> diff --git a/mm/memcontrol.c b/mm/memcontrol.c
> index 2715223..ee350c5 100644
> --- a/mm/memcontrol.c
> +++ b/mm/memcontrol.c
> @@ -3852,8 +3852,6 @@ static int mem_cgroup_force_empty_list(struct mem_cgroup *memcg,
> pc = lookup_page_cgroup(page);
>
> ret = mem_cgroup_move_parent(page, pc, memcg, GFP_KERNEL);
> - if (ret == -ENOMEM || ret == -EINTR)
> - break;
>
> if (ret == -EBUSY || ret == -EINVAL) {
> /* found lock contention or "pc" is obsolete. */
> @@ -3863,7 +3861,7 @@ static int mem_cgroup_force_empty_list(struct mem_cgroup *memcg,
> busy = NULL;
> }
>
> - if (!ret && !list_empty(list))
> + if (!loop)
> return -EBUSY;
> return ret;
> }
> @@ -3893,11 +3891,12 @@ static int mem_cgroup_force_empty(struct mem_cgroup *memcg, bool free_all)
> move_account:
> do {
> ret = -EBUSY;
> + /*
> + * This never happens when this is called by ->pre_destroy().
> + * But we need to take care of force_empty interface.
> + */
> if (cgroup_task_count(cgrp) || !list_empty(&cgrp->children))
> goto out;
Are you sure this never happens when called by ->pre_destroy()?
Can't a task still get attached to the cgroup while ->pre_destroy() is running?
At least, I don't see anything in the cgroup code that prevents
someone from newly attaching a task at that point.
In fact, there is code that seems to handle the case when someone
attached to the cgroup after pre_destroy() has run: See the
cgroup_wakeup_rmdir_waiter() call in cgroup_attach_task().
-- Suleiman
--
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