lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2014]   [Jan]   [22]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH -mm 2/2] memcg: fix css reference leak and endless loop in mem_cgroup_iter
On Tue 21-01-14 13:18:42, Hugh Dickins wrote:
[...]
> We do have a confusing situation. The hang goes back to 3.10 but takes
> two different forms, because of intervening changes: in 3.10 and 3.11
> mem_cgroup_iter repeatedly returns root memcg to its caller, in 3.12 and
> 3.13 mem_cgroup_iter repeatedly gets NULL memcg from mem_cgroup_iter_next
> and cannot return to its caller.
>
> Patch 1/2 is what's needed to fix 3.10 and 3.11 (and applies correctly
> to 3.11, but will have to be rediffed for 3.10 because of rearrangement
> in between).

I will backport it when it reaches stable queue.

> Patch 2/2 is what's needed to fix 3.12 and 3.13 (but applies
> correctly to neither of them because it's diffed on top of my CSS_ONLINE
> fix). Patch 1/2 is correct but unnecessary in 3.12 and 3.13: I'm unclear
> whether Michal is claiming that it would also fix the hang in 3.12 and
> 3.13 if we didn't have 2/2: I doubt that, and haven't tested that.

Actually both patches are needed. If we had only 2/2 then we wouldn't
endless loop inside mem_cgroup_iter but we could still return root to
caller all the time because mem_cgroup_iter_load would return NULL on
css_tryget failure on the cached root. Or am I missing something that
would prevent that?

> Given how Michal has diffed this patch on top of my CSS_ONLINE one
> (mm-memcg-iteration-skip-memcgs-not-yet-fully-initialized.patch),
> it would be helpful if you could mark that one also for stable 3.12+,
> to save us from having to rediff this one for stable. We don't have
> a concrete example of a problem it solves in the vanilla kernel, but
> it makes more sense to include it than to exclude it.

Yes, I think it makes sense to queue it for 3.12+ as well because it is
non intrusive and potential issues would be really subtle.

> (You would be right to point out that the CSS_ONLINE one fixes
> something that goes back to 3.10: I'm saying 3.12+ because I'm not
> motivated to rediff it for 3.10 and 3.11 when there's nothing to
> go on top; but that's not a very good reason to lie - overrule me.)
>
> Hugh

--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2014-01-22 10:01    [W:0.078 / U:0.176 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site