Re: [PATCH -mmotm 3/3] memcg: remove memcg_tasklist

[Balbir Singh <balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com>]

* nishimura@mxp.nes.nec.co.jp <nishimura@mxp.nes.nec.co.jp> [2009-11-11 10:39:06]:

> memcg_tasklist was introduced at commit 7f4d454d(memcg: avoid deadlock caused
> by race between oom and cpuset_attach) instead of cgroup_mutex to fix a deadlock
> problem.  The cgroup_mutex, which was removed by the commit, in
> mem_cgroup_out_of_memory() was originally introduced at commit c7ba5c9e
> (Memory controller: OOM handling).
> 
> IIUC, the intention of this cgroup_mutex was to prevent task move during
> select_bad_process() so that situations like below can be avoided.
> 
>   Assume cgroup "foo" has exceeded its limit and is about to trigger oom.
>   1. Process A, which has been in cgroup "baa" and uses large memory, is just
>      moved to cgroup "foo". Process A can be the candidates for being killed.
>   2. Process B, which has been in cgroup "foo" and uses large memory, is just
>      moved from cgroup "foo". Process B can be excluded from the candidates for
>      being killed.
> 
> But these race window exists anyway even if we hold a lock, because
> __mem_cgroup_try_charge() decides wether it should trigger oom or not outside
> of the lock. So the original cgroup_mutex in mem_cgroup_out_of_memory and thus
> current memcg_tasklist has no use. And IMHO, those races are not so critical
> for users.
> 
> This patch removes it and make codes simpler.
>

Could you please test for side-effects like concurrent OOM. An idea of
how the patchset was tested would be good to have, given the
implications of these changes.

Not-Yet-Acked-by: Balbir Singh <balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
 

-- 
	Balbir

--
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>