Michal Hocko <mhocko@xxxxxxx> writes:
> On Mon 11-06-12 14:58:45, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote:
>> Michal Hocko <mhocko@xxxxxxx> writes:
>>
>> > On Sat 09-06-12 14:29:56, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote:
>> >> From: "Aneesh Kumar K.V" <aneesh.kumar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> >>
>> >> This patchset add the charge and uncharge routines for hugetlb cgroup.
>> >> This will be used in later patches when we allocate/free HugeTLB
>> >> pages.
>> >
>> > Please describe the locking rules.
>>
>> All the update happen within hugetlb_lock.
>
> Yes, I figured but it is definitely worth mentioning in the patch
> description.
Done.
>
> [...]
>> >> +void hugetlb_cgroup_commit_charge(int idx, unsigned long nr_pages,
>> >> + struct hugetlb_cgroup *h_cg,
>> >> + struct page *page)
>> >> +{
>> >> + if (hugetlb_cgroup_disabled() || !h_cg)
>> >> + return;
>> >> +
>> >> + spin_lock(&hugetlb_lock);
>> >> + if (hugetlb_cgroup_from_page(page)) {
>> >
>> > How can this happen? Is it possible that two CPUs are trying to charge
>> > one page?
>>
>> That is why I added that. I looked at the alloc_huge_page, and I
>> don't see we would end with same page from different CPUs but then
>> we have similar checks in memcg, where we drop the charge if we find
>> the page cgroup already used.
>
> Yes but memcg is little bit more complicated than hugetlb which has
> which doesn't have to cope with async charges. Hugetlb allocation is
> serialized by hugetlb_lock so only one caller gets the page.
> I do not think the check is required here or add a comment explaining
> how it can happen.
>
updated.
-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>