From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Kamezawa Hiroyuki Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 05/25] memcg: Always free struct memcg through schedule_work() Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2012 09:11:20 +0900 Message-ID: <4FDFC3A8.7010301@jp.fujitsu.com> References: <1340015298-14133-1-git-send-email-glommer@parallels.com> <1340015298-14133-6-git-send-email-glommer@parallels.com> <4FDF1A0D.6080204@jp.fujitsu.com> <4FDF1AAE.4080209@parallels.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <4FDF1AAE.4080209-bzQdu9zFT3WakBO8gow8eQ@public.gmane.org> Sender: cgroups-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org List-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: Glauber Costa Cc: linux-mm-Bw31MaZKKs3YtjvyW6yDsg@public.gmane.org, Pekka Enberg , Cristoph Lameter , David Rientjes , cgroups-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, devel-GEFAQzZX7r8dnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org, linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, Frederic Weisbecker , Suleiman Souhlal , Tejun Heo , Li Zefan , Johannes Weiner , Michal Hocko (2012/06/18 21:10), Glauber Costa wrote: > On 06/18/2012 04:07 PM, Kamezawa Hiroyuki wrote: >> (2012/06/18 19:27), 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 >> >> How about cut out this patch and merge first as simple cleanu up and >> to reduce patch stack on your side ? >> >> Acked-by: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki > > I believe this is already in the -mm tree (from the sock memcg fixes) > > But actually, my main trouble with this series here, is that I am basing > it on Pekka's tree, while some of the fixes are in -mm already. > If I'd base it on -mm I would lose some of the stuff as well. > > Maybe Pekka can merge the current -mm with his tree? > > So far I am happy with getting comments from people about the code, so I > did not get overly concerned about that. > Sure. thank you. -Kame