Re: [PATCH 2/2] memcg: reap dead memcgs under pressure

[Li Zefan <lizefan@huawei.com>]

> +static void memcg_vmpressure_shrink_dead(void)
> +{
> +	struct memcg_cache_params *params, *tmp;
> +	struct kmem_cache *cachep;
> +	struct mem_cgroup *memcg;
> +
> +	mutex_lock(&dangling_memcgs_mutex);
> +	list_for_each_entry(memcg, &dangling_memcgs, dead) {
> +
> +		mem_cgroup_get(memcg);

This mem_cgroup_get() looks redundant to me, because you're iterating the list
and never release dangling_memcgs_mutex in the middle.

> +		mutex_lock(&memcg->slab_caches_mutex);
> +		/* The element may go away as an indirect result of shrink */
> +		list_for_each_entry_safe(params, tmp,
> +					 &memcg->memcg_slab_caches, list) {
> +
> +			cachep = memcg_params_to_cache(params);
> +			/*
> +			 * the cpu_hotplug lock is taken in kmem_cache_create
> +			 * outside the slab_caches_mutex manipulation. It will
> +			 * be taken by kmem_cache_shrink to flush the cache.
> +			 * So we need to drop the lock. It is all right because
> +			 * the lock only protects elements moving in and out the
> +			 * list.
> +			 */
> +			mutex_unlock(&memcg->slab_caches_mutex);
> +			kmem_cache_shrink(cachep);
> +			mutex_lock(&memcg->slab_caches_mutex);
> +		}
> +		mutex_unlock(&memcg->slab_caches_mutex);
> +		mem_cgroup_put(memcg);
> +	}
> +	mutex_unlock(&dangling_memcgs_mutex);
> +}

--
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>