On Thu 19-07-12 16:56:18, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote:

Kamezawa Hiroyuki [off-list ref] writes:

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

We test RES_USAGE before taking hugetlb_lock.  What prevents some other
thread from increasing RES_USAGE after that test?

After walking the list we test RES_USAGE after dropping hugetlb_lock.
What prevents another thread from incrementing RES_USAGE before that
test, triggering the BUG?

IIUC core cgroup will prevent a new task getting added to the cgroup
when we are in pre_destroy. Since we already check that the cgroup doesn't
have any task, the RES_USAGE cannot increase in pre_destroy.

You're wrong here. We release cgroup_lock before calling pre_destroy and retrieve
the lock after that, so a task can be attached to the cgroup in this interval.

But that means rmdir can be racy right ? What happens if the task got
added, allocated few pages and then moved out ? We still would have task
count 0 but few pages, which we missed to to move to parent cgroup.

That's a problem even if it's verrrry unlikely.
I'd like to look into it and fix the race in cgroup layer.
But I'm sorry I'm a bit busy in these days...

How about moving that mutex_unlock(&cgroup_mutex) to memcg callback ? That
can be a patch for 3.5 ? 

Bahh, I have just posted a follow up on mm-commits email exactly about
this. Sorry I have missed that the discussion is still ongoing. I have
posted also something I guess should help. Can we follow up on that one
or should I post the patch here as well?

-aneesh
 

-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
SUSE LINUX s.r.o.
Lihovarska 1060/12
190 00 Praha 9    
Czech Republic

--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org.  For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>