Re: [BUGFIX][PATCH] memcg: get/put parents at create/free

[Daisuke Nishimura <nishimura@mxp.nes.nec.co.jp>]

On Fri, 16 Jan 2009 11:17:02 +0900, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 15 Jan 2009 18:12:43 -0800
> Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
> 
> > On Fri, 16 Jan 2009 10:50:09 +0900 Daisuke Nishimura <nishimura@mxp.nes.nec.co.jp> wrote:
> > 
> > > This version works well in my test.
> > > 
> > > Andrew, please pick up this one.
> > > 
> > > ===
> > > From: Daisuke Nishimura <nishimura@mxp.nes.nec.co.jp>
> > > 
> > > The lifetime of struct cgroup and struct mem_cgroup is different and
> > > mem_cgroup has its own reference count for handling references from swap_cgroup.
> > > 
> > > This causes strange problem that the parent mem_cgroup dies while
> > > child mem_cgroup alive, and this problem causes a bug in case of use_hierarchy==1
> > > because res_counter_uncharge climbs up the tree.
> > > 
> > > This patch is for avoiding it by getting the parent at create, and
> > > putting it at freeing.
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Daisuke Nishimura <nishimura@mxp.nes.nec.co.jp>
> > > Reviewed-by; KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>
> > > ---
> > >  mm/memcontrol.c |   23 ++++++++++++++++++++++-
> > >  1 files changed, 22 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
> > > 
> > > diff --git a/mm/memcontrol.c b/mm/memcontrol.c
> > > index fb62b43..45e1b51 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 struct mem_cgroup *parent_mem_cgroup(struct mem_cgroup *mem);
> > > +static void mem_cgroup_get_parent(struct mem_cgroup *mem);
> > >  
> > >  static void mem_cgroup_charge_statistics(struct mem_cgroup *mem,
> > >  					 struct page_cgroup *pc,
> > > @@ -2185,10 +2187,28 @@ 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)) {
> > > +		struct mem_cgroup *parent = parent_mem_cgroup(mem);
> > >  		__mem_cgroup_free(mem);
> > > +		if (parent)
> > > +			mem_cgroup_put(parent);
> > > +	}
> > > +}
> > > +
> > > +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_parent(struct mem_cgroup *mem)
> > > +{
> > > +	struct mem_cgroup *parent = parent_mem_cgroup(mem);
> > > +
> > > +	if (parent)
> > > +		mem_cgroup_get(parent);
> > > +}
> > >  
> > >  #ifdef CONFIG_CGROUP_MEM_RES_CTLR_SWAP
> > >  static void __init enable_swap_cgroup(void)
> > > @@ -2237,6 +2257,7 @@ 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_parent(mem);
> > >  	return &mem->css;
> > >  free_out:
> > >  	__mem_cgroup_free(mem);
> > 
> > It seems strange that we add a little helper function for the get(),
> > but open-code the put()?
> > 
> Maybe I don't feel this as strange because I saw update history of this patch ;(
> As you pointed out, I like open-code rather than helper here. Nishimura-san,
> could you update ?
> 
Sure.

The patch has gone into mmotm already, so I'll send a fix patch.

please wait for a while


Thanks,
Daisuke Nishimura.

--
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: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>