On 09/26/2012 08:01 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Wed 26-09-12 18:33:10, Glauber Costa wrote:
>> On 09/26/2012 06:03 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
>>> On Tue 18-09-12 18:04:01, Glauber Costa wrote:
> [...]
>>>> @@ -4961,6 +5015,12 @@ mem_cgroup_create(struct cgroup *cont)
>>>> int cpu;
>>>> enable_swap_cgroup();
>>>> parent = NULL;
>>>> +
>>>> +#ifdef CONFIG_MEMCG_KMEM
>>>> + WARN_ON(cgroup_add_cftypes(&mem_cgroup_subsys,
>>>> + kmem_cgroup_files));
>>>> +#endif
>>>> +
>>>> if (mem_cgroup_soft_limit_tree_init())
>>>> goto free_out;
>>>> root_mem_cgroup = memcg;
>>>> @@ -4979,6 +5039,7 @@ mem_cgroup_create(struct cgroup *cont)
>>>> if (parent && parent->use_hierarchy) {
>>>> res_counter_init(&memcg->res, &parent->res);
>>>> res_counter_init(&memcg->memsw, &parent->memsw);
>>>> + res_counter_init(&memcg->kmem, &parent->kmem);
>>>
>>> Haven't we already discussed that a new memcg should inherit kmem_accounted
>>> from its parent for use_hierarchy?
>>> Say we have
>>> root
>>> |
>>> A (kmem_accounted = 1, use_hierachy = 1)
>>> \
>>> B (kmem_accounted = 0)
>>> \
>>> C (kmem_accounted = 1)
>>>
>>> B find's itself in an awkward situation becuase it doesn't want to
>>> account u+k but it ends up doing so becuase C.
>>>
>>
>> Ok, I haven't updated it here. But that should be taken care of in the
>> lifecycle patch.
>
> I am not sure which patch you are thinking about but I would prefer to
> have it here because it is safe wrt. races and it is more obvious as
> well.
>
The patch where I make kmem_accounted into a bitfield. So any code here
will eventually disappear.
But BTW, I am not saying I won't update the patch - I like that all
patches work and make sense in their own, I am just saying that I forgot
to update this patch, because I added the code in its final version to
the end and then squashed it.
--
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>