Michal Hocko <mhocko@xxxxxxx> writes:
> On Mon 11-06-12 15:10:20, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote:
>> Michal Hocko <mhocko@xxxxxxx> writes:
> [...]
>> >> +static int hugetlb_cgroup_move_parent(int idx, struct cgroup *cgroup,
>> >> + struct page *page)
>> >
>> > deserves a comment about the locking (needs to be called with
>> > hugetlb_lock).
>>
>> will do
>>
>> >
>> >> +{
>> >> + int csize;
>> >> + struct res_counter *counter;
>> >> + struct res_counter *fail_res;
>> >> + struct hugetlb_cgroup *page_hcg;
>> >> + struct hugetlb_cgroup *h_cg = hugetlb_cgroup_from_cgroup(cgroup);
>> >> + struct hugetlb_cgroup *parent = parent_hugetlb_cgroup(cgroup);
>> >> +
>> >> + if (!get_page_unless_zero(page))
>> >> + goto out;
>> >> +
>> >> + page_hcg = hugetlb_cgroup_from_page(page);
>> >> + /*
>> >> + * We can have pages in active list without any cgroup
>> >> + * ie, hugepage with less than 3 pages. We can safely
>> >> + * ignore those pages.
>> >> + */
>> >> + if (!page_hcg || page_hcg != h_cg)
>> >> + goto err_out;
>> >
>> > How can we have page_hcg != NULL && page_hcg != h_cg?
>>
>> pages belonging to other cgroup ?
>
> OK, I've forgot that you are iterating over all active huge pages in
> hugetlb_cgroup_pre_destroy. What prevents you from doing the filtering
> in the caller?
> I am also wondering why you need to play with the page reference
> counting here. You are under hugetlb_lock so the page cannot disappear
> in the meantime or am I missing something?
That is correct. Updated the patch and also added the below comment to
the function.
+
+/*
+ * Should be called with hugetlb_lock held.
+ * Since we are holding hugetlb_lock, pages cannot get moved from
+ * active list or uncharged from the cgroup, So no need to get
+ * page reference and test for page active here.
+ */
-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/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>