From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail203.messagelabs.com (mail203.messagelabs.com [216.82.254.243]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 5AB386B005C for ; Thu, 15 Jan 2009 02:56:07 -0500 (EST) Received: from m2.gw.fujitsu.co.jp ([10.0.50.72]) by fgwmail5.fujitsu.co.jp (Fujitsu Gateway) with ESMTP id n0F7u21Y014250 for (envelope-from kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com); Thu, 15 Jan 2009 16:56:03 +0900 Received: from smail (m2 [127.0.0.1]) by outgoing.m2.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 93E1345DE57 for ; Thu, 15 Jan 2009 16:56:02 +0900 (JST) Received: from s2.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (s2.gw.fujitsu.co.jp [10.0.50.92]) by m2.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id ADC1445DE62 for ; Thu, 15 Jan 2009 16:56:00 +0900 (JST) Received: from s2.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by s2.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2A05F1DB803C for ; Thu, 15 Jan 2009 16:56:00 +0900 (JST) Received: from ml14.s.css.fujitsu.com (ml14.s.css.fujitsu.com [10.249.87.104]) by s2.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1029F1DB803B for ; Thu, 15 Jan 2009 16:55:58 +0900 (JST) Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2009 16:54:53 +0900 From: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH] memcg: get/put parents at create/free Message-Id: <20090115165453.271848d9.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> In-Reply-To: <20090115164537.d402e95f.nishimura@mxp.nes.nec.co.jp> References: <20090113184533.6ffd2af9.nishimura@mxp.nes.nec.co.jp> <20090114175121.275ecd59.nishimura@mxp.nes.nec.co.jp> <7602a77a9fc6b1e8757468048fde749a.squirrel@webmail-b.css.fujitsu.com> <20090115100330.37d89d3d.nishimura@mxp.nes.nec.co.jp> <20090115110044.3a863af8.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> <20090115111420.8559bdb3.nishimura@mxp.nes.nec.co.jp> <20090115133814.a52460fa.nishimura@mxp.nes.nec.co.jp> <20090115164537.d402e95f.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 To: Daisuke Nishimura Cc: LKML , linux-mm , Andrew Morton , Balbir Singh , Pavel Emelyanov , Li Zefan , Paul Menage List-ID: On Thu, 15 Jan 2009 16:45:37 +0900 Daisuke Nishimura wrote: > On Thu, 15 Jan 2009 13:38:14 +0900, Daisuke Nishimura wrote: > > On Thu, 15 Jan 2009 11:14:20 +0900, Daisuke Nishimura wrote: > > > > > > To handle the problem "parent may be obsolete", > > > > > > > > > > > > call mem_cgroup_get(parent) at create() > > > > > > call mem_cgroup_put(parent) at freeing memcg. > > > > > > (regardless of use_hierarchy.) > > > > > > > > > > > > is clearer way to go, I think. > > > > > > > > > > > > I wonder whether there is mis-accounting problem or not.. > > > > > > > > hmm, after more consideration, although this patch can prevent the BUG, > > it can leak memsw accounting of parents because memsw of parents, which > > have been incremented by charge, does not decremented. > > > > I'll try pet/put parent approach.. > > Or any other good ideas ? > > > I attach a tryial patch. > > It has been working fine so far(for about 1 hour). > > Thanks, > Daisuke Nishimura. > === > From: Daisuke Nishimura > > mem_cgroup_get ensures that the memcg that has been got can be accessed > even after the directory has been removed, but it doesn't ensure that parents > of it can be accessed: parents might have been freed already by rmdir. > > This causes a bug in case of use_hierarchy==1, because res_counter_uncharge > climb up the tree. > > This patch tries to fix this probrem by getting parents at create, and > putting them at freeing. > > Signed-off-by: Daisuke Nishimura > --- > mm/memcontrol.c | 33 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++- > 1 files changed, 32 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/mm/memcontrol.c b/mm/memcontrol.c > index fb62b43..b4aed07 100644 > --- a/mm/memcontrol.c > +++ b/mm/memcontrol.c > @@ -202,6 +202,8 @@ pcg_default_flags[NR_CHARGE_TYPE] = { > > static void mem_cgroup_get(struct mem_cgroup *mem); > static void mem_cgroup_put(struct mem_cgroup *mem); > +static void mem_cgroup_get_parents(struct mem_cgroup *mem); > +static void mem_cgroup_put_parents(struct mem_cgroup *mem); > > static void mem_cgroup_charge_statistics(struct mem_cgroup *mem, > struct page_cgroup *pc, > @@ -2185,10 +2187,38 @@ static void mem_cgroup_get(struct mem_cgroup *mem) > > static void mem_cgroup_put(struct mem_cgroup *mem) > { > - if (atomic_dec_and_test(&mem->refcnt)) > + if (atomic_dec_and_test(&mem->refcnt)) { > + mem_cgroup_put_parents(mem); > __mem_cgroup_free(mem); > + } > +} > + > +static struct mem_cgroup *parent_mem_cgroup(struct mem_cgroup *mem) > +{ > + if (!mem->res.parent) > + return NULL; > + return mem_cgroup_from_res_counter(mem->res.parent, res); > +} > + > +static void mem_cgroup_get_parents(struct mem_cgroup *mem) > +{ > + struct mem_cgroup *parent = parent_mem_cgroup(mem); > + > + while (parent) { > + mem_cgroup_get(parent); > + parent = parent_mem_cgroup(parent); > + } > } > does we have to add refcnt to all ancestors ? Thanks, -Kame > +static void mem_cgroup_put_parents(struct mem_cgroup *mem) > +{ > + struct mem_cgroup *parent = parent_mem_cgroup(mem); > + > + while (parent) { > + mem_cgroup_put(parent); > + parent = parent_mem_cgroup(parent); > + } > +} > > #ifdef CONFIG_CGROUP_MEM_RES_CTLR_SWAP > static void __init enable_swap_cgroup(void) > @@ -2237,6 +2267,7 @@ mem_cgroup_create(struct cgroup_subsys *ss, struct cgroup *cont) > if (parent) > mem->swappiness = get_swappiness(parent); > atomic_set(&mem->refcnt, 1); > + mem_cgroup_get_parents(mem); > return &mem->css; > free_out: > __mem_cgroup_free(mem); > -- 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