From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 1/2] Always free struct memcg through schedule_work() Date: Mon, 14 May 2012 09:56:20 +0900 Message-ID: <4FB05834.1020200@jp.fujitsu.com> References: <1336767077-25351-1-git-send-email-glommer@parallels.com> <1336767077-25351-2-git-send-email-glommer@parallels.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <1336767077-25351-2-git-send-email-glommer-bzQdu9zFT3WakBO8gow8eQ@public.gmane.org> Sender: cgroups-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org List-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: Glauber Costa Cc: cgroups-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, linux-mm-Bw31MaZKKs3YtjvyW6yDsg@public.gmane.org, devel-GEFAQzZX7r8dnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org, netdev-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, Tejun Heo , Li Zefan , Johannes Weiner , Michal Hocko (2012/05/12 5:11), Glauber Costa wrote: > Right now we free struct memcg with kfree right after a > rcu grace period, but defer it if we need to use vfree() to get > rid of that memory area. We do that by need, because we need vfree > to be called in a process context. > > This patch unifies this behavior, by ensuring that even kfree will > happen in a separate thread. The goal is to have a stable place to > call the upcoming jump label destruction function outside the realm > of the complicated and quite far-reaching cgroup lock (that can't be > held when calling neither the cpu_hotplug.lock nor the jump_label_mutex) > > Signed-off-by: Glauber Costa > CC: Tejun Heo > CC: Li Zefan > CC: Kamezawa Hiroyuki > CC: Johannes Weiner > CC: Michal Hocko I think we'll need to revisit this, again. for now, Acked-by: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki