Re: [PATCH v7 00/10] Request for Inclusion: per-cgroup tcp memory pressure
From: Glauber Costa <hidden>
Date: 2011-12-02 18:04:48
Also in:
cgroups, linux-mm, lkml
On 11/30/2011 12:11 AM, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote:
On Tue, 29 Nov 2011 21:56:51 -0200 Glauber Costa[off-list ref] wrote:quoted
Hi, This patchset implements per-cgroup tcp memory pressure controls. It did not change significantly since last submission: rather, it just merges the comments Kame had. Most of them are style-related and/or Documentation, but there are two real bugs he managed to spot (thanks) Please let me know if there is anything else I should address.After reading all codes again, I feel some strange. Could you clarify ? Here. == +void sock_update_memcg(struct sock *sk) +{ + /* right now a socket spends its whole life in the same cgroup */ + if (sk->sk_cgrp) { + WARN_ON(1); + return; + } + if (static_branch(&memcg_socket_limit_enabled)) { + struct mem_cgroup *memcg; + + BUG_ON(!sk->sk_prot->proto_cgroup); + + rcu_read_lock(); + memcg = mem_cgroup_from_task(current); + if (!mem_cgroup_is_root(memcg)) + sk->sk_cgrp = sk->sk_prot->proto_cgroup(memcg); + rcu_read_unlock(); == sk->sk_cgrp is set to a memcg without any reference count. Then, no check for preventing rmdir() and freeing memcgroup. Is there some css_get() or mem_cgroup_get() somewhere ?
There were a css_get in the first version of this patchset. It was removed, however, because it was deemed anti-intuitive to prevent rmdir, since we can't know which sockets are blocking it, or do anything about it. Or did I misunderstand something ? -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe cgroups" in the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html