From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from m3.gw.fujitsu.co.jp ([10.0.50.73]) by fgwmail6.fujitsu.co.jp (Fujitsu Gateway) with ESMTP id mB93xP9W001706 for (envelope-from kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com); Tue, 9 Dec 2008 12:59:26 +0900 Received: from smail (m3 [127.0.0.1]) by outgoing.m3.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id AD17D45DD78 for ; Tue, 9 Dec 2008 12:59:25 +0900 (JST) Received: from s3.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (s3.gw.fujitsu.co.jp [10.0.50.93]) by m3.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8BBB645DD7F for ; Tue, 9 Dec 2008 12:59:25 +0900 (JST) Received: from s3.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by s3.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 50ADA1DB803B for ; Tue, 9 Dec 2008 12:59:25 +0900 (JST) Received: from ml13.s.css.fujitsu.com (ml13.s.css.fujitsu.com [10.249.87.103]) by s3.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 08DCCE08001 for ; Tue, 9 Dec 2008 12:59:22 +0900 (JST) Date: Tue, 9 Dec 2008 12:58:29 +0900 From: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki Subject: Re: [mm] [PATCH 3/4] Memory cgroup hierarchical reclaim (v4) Message-Id: <20081209125829.556b1e40.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> In-Reply-To: <20081209125341.456bf635.nishimura@mxp.nes.nec.co.jp> References: <20081116081034.25166.7586.sendpatchset@balbir-laptop> <20081116081055.25166.85066.sendpatchset@balbir-laptop> <20081125205832.38f8c365.nishimura@mxp.nes.nec.co.jp> <492C1345.9090201@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20081126111447.106ec275.nishimura@mxp.nes.nec.co.jp> <20081209115943.7d6a0ea3.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> <20081209125341.456bf635.nishimura@mxp.nes.nec.co.jp> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Daisuke Nishimura Cc: balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com, linux-mm@kvack.org, YAMAMOTO Takashi , Paul Menage , lizf@cn.fujitsu.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Nick Piggin , David Rientjes , Pavel Emelianov , Dhaval Giani , Andrew Morton List-ID: On Tue, 9 Dec 2008 12:53:41 +0900 Daisuke Nishimura wrote: > Not yet. > > Those dead locks cannot be fixed as long as reclaim path tries to hold cgroup_mutex. > (current mmotm doesn't hold cgroup_mutex on reclaim path if !use_hierarchy and > I'm testing with !use_hierarchy. It works well basically, but I got another bug > at rmdir today, and digging it now.) > > The dead lock I've fixed by memcg-avoid-dead-lock-caused-by-race-between-oom-and-cpuset_attach.patch > is another one(removed cgroup_lock from oom code). > Okay, then removing cgroup_lock from memory-reclaim path is a way to go.. Thank you. -Kame -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org