Re: [PATCH v2 06/11] memcg: kmem controller infrastructure

[Glauber Costa <glommer@parallels.com>]

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.

How about we change the following code in mem_cgroup_do_charge:

        if (gfp_mask & __GFP_NORETRY)
                return CHARGE_NOMEM;

to:

        if ((gfp_mask & __GFP_NORETRY) || (gfp_mask & __GFP_ATOMIC))
                return CHARGE_NOMEM;

?

Would this take care of the issue ?

--
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>