From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753152AbcHOMhy (ORCPT ); Mon, 15 Aug 2016 08:37:54 -0400 Received: from gum.cmpxchg.org ([85.214.110.215]:57974 "EHLO gum.cmpxchg.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753123AbcHOMhw (ORCPT ); Mon, 15 Aug 2016 08:37:52 -0400 Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2016 08:34:07 -0400 From: Johannes Weiner To: Michal Hocko Cc: Stable tree , Vladimir Davydov , Andrew Morton , linux-mm@kvack.org, LKML , Nikolay Borisov , Linus Torvalds , Michal Hocko Subject: Re: [PATCH stable-4.4 1/3] mm: memcontrol: fix cgroup creation failure after many small jobs Message-ID: <20160815123407.GA1153@cmpxchg.org> References: <1470995779-10064-1-git-send-email-mhocko@kernel.org> <1470995779-10064-2-git-send-email-mhocko@kernel.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1470995779-10064-2-git-send-email-mhocko@kernel.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.6.2 (2016-07-01) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi Michal, thanks for doing this. There is only one issue I can see: On Fri, Aug 12, 2016 at 11:56:17AM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > @@ -4171,17 +4211,27 @@ static struct mem_cgroup *mem_cgroup_alloc(void) > if (!memcg) > return NULL; > > + memcg->id.id = idr_alloc(&mem_cgroup_idr, NULL, > + 1, MEM_CGROUP_ID_MAX, > + GFP_KERNEL); > + if (memcg->id.id < 0) > + goto out_free; > + > memcg->stat = alloc_percpu(struct mem_cgroup_stat_cpu); > if (!memcg->stat) > - goto out_free; > + goto out_idr; > > if (memcg_wb_domain_init(memcg, GFP_KERNEL)) > goto out_free_stat; > > + idr_replace(&mem_cgroup_idr, memcg, memcg->id.id); This publishes the memcg object too early. Before 4.5, the memcg is not fully initialized in mem_cgroup_alloc(). You have to move the idr_replace() down to that function (and idr_remove() on free_out). > return memcg; > > out_free_stat: > free_percpu(memcg->stat); > +out_idr: > + if (memcg->id.id > 0) > + idr_remove(&mem_cgroup_idr, memcg->id.id); The > 0 check seems unnecessary, no?