From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from psmtp.com (na3sys010amx121.postini.com [74.125.245.121]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with SMTP id A4BA46B005D for ; Thu, 18 Oct 2012 04:42:15 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2012 10:42:12 +0200 From: Michal Hocko Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/6] memcg: make mem_cgroup_reparent_charges non failing Message-ID: <20121018084212.GA24295@dhcp22.suse.cz> References: <1350480648-10905-1-git-send-email-mhocko@suse.cz> <1350480648-10905-6-git-send-email-mhocko@suse.cz> <507FBE1B.4080906@huawei.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <507FBE1B.4080906@huawei.com> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Li Zefan Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org, cgroups@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Tejun Heo , Johannes Weiner , KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki , Balbir Singh On Thu 18-10-12 16:30:19, Li Zefan wrote: > > static int mem_cgroup_force_empty_write(struct cgroup *cont, unsigned int event) > > @@ -5013,13 +5011,9 @@ free_out: > > static int mem_cgroup_pre_destroy(struct cgroup *cont) > > { > > struct mem_cgroup *memcg = mem_cgroup_from_cont(cont); > > - int ret; > > > > - css_get(&memcg->css); > > - ret = mem_cgroup_reparent_charges(memcg); > > - css_put(&memcg->css); > > - > > - return ret; > > + mem_cgroup_reparent_charges(memcg); > > + return 0; > > } > > > > Why don't you make pre_destroy() return void? Yes I plan to do that later after I have feedback for this RFC. I am especially interested whether the cgroup core patch is OK, resp. has to be reworked to pull pre_destroy outside of cgroup_lock Thanks -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs -- 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