linux-mm.kvack.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>
To: Glauber Costa <glommer@parallels.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	cgroups@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, devel@openvz.org,
	netdev@vger.kernel.org, Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>,
	Li Zefan <lizefan@huawei.com>,
	Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>,
	Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.cz>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 2/2] decrement static keys on real destroy time
Date: Thu, 17 May 2012 19:27:09 +0900	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <4FB4D27D.7020009@jp.fujitsu.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4FB4D14D.4020303@parallels.com>

(2012/05/17 19:22), Glauber Costa wrote:

> On 05/17/2012 02:18 PM, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote:
>> (2012/05/17 18:52), Glauber Costa wrote:
>>
>>> On 05/17/2012 09:37 AM, Andrew Morton wrote:
>>>>>>   If that happens, locking in static_key_slow_inc will prevent any damage.
>>>>>>   My previous version had explicit code to prevent that, but we were
>>>>>>   pointed out that this is already part of the static_key expectations, so
>>>>>>   that was dropped.
>>>> This makes no sense.  If two threads run that code concurrently,
>>>> key->enabled gets incremented twice.  Nobody anywhere has a record that
>>>> this happened so it cannot be undone.  key->enabled is now in an
>>>> unknown state.
>>>
>>> Kame, Tejun,
>>>
>>> Andrew is right. It seems we will need that mutex after all. Just this
>>> is not a race, and neither something that should belong in the
>>> static_branch interface.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Hmm....how about having
>>
>> res_counter_xchg_limit(res,&old_limit, new_limit);
>>
>> if (!cg_proto->updated&&  old_limit == RESOURCE_MAX)
>> 	....update labels...
>>
>> Then, no mutex overhead maybe and activated will be updated only once.
>> Ah, but please fix in a way you like. Above is an example.
> 
> I think a mutex is a lot cleaner than adding a new function to the 
> res_counter interface.
> 
> We could do a counter, and then later decrement the key until the 
> counter reaches zero, but between those two, I still think a mutex here 
> is preferable.
> 
> Only that, instead of coming up with a mutex of ours, we could export 
> and reuse set_limit_mutex from memcontrol.c
> 


ok, please.

thx,
-Kame

> 
>> Thanks,
>> -Kame
>> (*) I'm sorry I won't be able to read e-mails, tomorrow.
>>
> Ok Kame. I am not in a terrible hurry to fix this, it doesn't seem to be 
> hurting any real workload.
> 
> 



--
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/ .
Fight unfair telecom internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>

  reply	other threads:[~2012-05-17 10:29 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 26+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2012-05-11 20:11 [PATCH v5 0/2] fix static_key disabling problem in memcg Glauber Costa
2012-05-11 20:11 ` [PATCH v5 1/2] Always free struct memcg through schedule_work() Glauber Costa
2012-05-14  0:56   ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2012-05-11 20:11 ` [PATCH v5 2/2] decrement static keys on real destroy time Glauber Costa
2012-05-14  0:59   ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2012-05-16  6:03     ` Glauber Costa
2012-05-16  7:04       ` Glauber Costa
2012-05-16  8:28         ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2012-05-16  8:30           ` Glauber Costa
2012-05-16  8:37           ` Glauber Costa
2012-05-14  1:38   ` Li Zefan
2012-05-16  7:03     ` Glauber Costa
2012-05-16 20:57       ` Andrew Morton
2012-05-14 18:12   ` Tejun Heo
2012-05-16 21:06   ` Andrew Morton
2012-05-17  3:06     ` Glauber Costa
2012-05-17  5:37       ` Andrew Morton
2012-05-17  9:52         ` Glauber Costa
2012-05-17 10:18           ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2012-05-17 10:22             ` Glauber Costa
2012-05-17 10:27               ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki [this message]
2012-05-17 15:19           ` Tejun Heo
2012-05-17 17:02           ` Andrew Morton
2012-05-16 21:13   ` Andrew Morton
2012-05-17  0:07     ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2012-05-17  3:09     ` Glauber Costa

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=4FB4D27D.7020009@jp.fujitsu.com \
    --to=kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=cgroups@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=devel@openvz.org \
    --cc=glommer@parallels.com \
    --cc=hannes@cmpxchg.org \
    --cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
    --cc=lizefan@huawei.com \
    --cc=mhocko@suse.cz \
    --cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=tj@kernel.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).