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>
next prev parent 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).