lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2012]   [May]   [2]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [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



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2012-05-02 17:41    [W:0.085 / U:0.448 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site