On Wed 15-08-12 18:01:51, Glauber Costa wrote:
> On 08/15/2012 05:09 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Wed 15-08-12 13:42:24, Glauber Costa wrote:
> > [...]
> >>>> +
> >>>> + ret = 0;
> >>>> +
> >>>> + if (!memcg)
> >>>> + return ret;
> >>>> +
> >>>> + _memcg = memcg;
> >>>> + ret = __mem_cgroup_try_charge(NULL, gfp, delta / PAGE_SIZE,
> >>>> + &_memcg, may_oom);
> >>>
> >>> This is really dangerous because atomic allocation which seem to be
> >>> possible could result in deadlocks because of the reclaim.
> >>
> >> Can you elaborate on how this would happen?
> >
> > Say you have an atomic allocation and we hit the limit so we get either
> > to reclaim which can sleep or to oom which can sleep as well (depending
> > on the oom_control).
> >
>
> I see now, you seem to be right.
No I am not because it seems that I am really blind these days...
We were doing this in mem_cgroup_do_charge for ages:
if (!(gfp_mask & __GFP_WAIT))
return CHARGE_WOULDBLOCK;
/me goes to hide and get with further feedback with a clean head.
Sorry about that.
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
--
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>