Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 18 Jun 2012 16:10:22 +0400 | From | Glauber Costa <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v4 05/25] memcg: Always free struct memcg through schedule_work() |
| |
On 06/18/2012 04:07 PM, Kamezawa Hiroyuki wrote: > (2012/06/18 19:27), Glauber Costa wrote: >> Right now we free struct memcg with kfree right after a >> rcu grace period, but defer it if we need to use vfree() to get >> rid of that memory area. We do that by need, because we need vfree >> to be called in a process context. >> >> This patch unifies this behavior, by ensuring that even kfree will >> happen in a separate thread. The goal is to have a stable place to >> call the upcoming jump label destruction function outside the realm >> of the complicated and quite far-reaching cgroup lock (that can't be >> held when calling neither the cpu_hotplug.lock nor the jump_label_mutex) >> >> Signed-off-by: Glauber Costa<glommer@parallels.com> >> CC: Tejun Heo<tj@kernel.org> >> CC: Li Zefan<lizefan@huawei.com> >> CC: Kamezawa Hiroyuki<kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> >> CC: Johannes Weiner<hannes@cmpxchg.org> >> CC: Michal Hocko<mhocko@suse.cz> > > How about cut out this patch and merge first as simple cleanu up and > to reduce patch stack on your side ? > > Acked-by: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>
I believe this is already in the -mm tree (from the sock memcg fixes)
But actually, my main trouble with this series here, is that I am basing it on Pekka's tree, while some of the fixes are in -mm already. If I'd base it on -mm I would lose some of the stuff as well.
Maybe Pekka can merge the current -mm with his tree?
So far I am happy with getting comments from people about the code, so I did not get overly concerned about that.
| |