Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 2 May 2012 12:14:37 -0300 | From | Glauber Costa <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 00/23] slab+slub accounting for memcg |
| |
On 04/30/2012 06:43 PM, Suleiman Souhlal wrote: >> I am leaving destruction of caches out of the series, although most >> > of the infrastructure for that is here, since we did it in earlier >> > series. This is basically because right now Kame is reworking it for >> > user memcg, and I like the new proposed behavior a lot more. We all seemed >> > to have agreed that reclaim is an interesting problem by itself, and >> > is not included in this already too complicated series. Please note >> > that this is still marked as experimental, so we have so room. A proper >> > shrinker implementation is a hard requirement to take the kmem controller >> > out of the experimental state. > We will have to be careful for cache destruction. > I found several races between allocation and destruction, in my patchset. > > I think we should consider doing the uncharging of kmem when > destroying a memcg in mem_cgroup_destroy() instead of in > pre_destroy(), because it's still possible that there are threads in > the cgroup while pre_destroy() is being called (or for threads to be > moved into the cgroup).
I found some problems here as well. I am trying to work ontop of what Kamezawa posted for pre_destroy() rework. I have one or two incorrect uncharging issues to solve, that's actually what is holding me for posting a new version.
expected soon
| |