On Tue, 27 May 2014 14:36:04 -0700 (PDT) Hugh Dickins <hughd@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> mem_cgroup_within_guarantee() oopses in _raw_spin_lock_irqsave() when
> booted with cgroup_disable=memory. Fix that in the obvious inelegant
> way for now - though I hope we are moving towards a world in which
> almost all of the mem_cgroup_disabled() tests will vanish, with a
> root_mem_cgroup which can handle the basics even when disabled.
>
> I bet there's a neater way of doing this, rearranging the loop (and we
> shall want to avoid spinlocking on root_mem_cgroup when we reach that
> new world), but that's the kind of thing I'd get wrong in a hurry!
>
> ...
>
> @@ -2793,6 +2793,9 @@ static struct mem_cgroup *mem_cgroup_loo
> bool mem_cgroup_within_guarantee(struct mem_cgroup *memcg,
> struct mem_cgroup *root)
> {
> + if (mem_cgroup_disabled())
> + return false;
> +
> do {
> if (!res_counter_low_limit_excess(&memcg->res))
> return true;
This seems to be an awfully late and deep place at which to be noticing
mem_cgroup_disabled(). Should mem_cgroup_within_guarantee() even be called
in this state?
--
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>