Re: [PATCH v2 5/7] May god have mercy on my soul.

[Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.cz>]

Please merge this into the following patch.

On Fri 11-01-13 13:45:25, Glauber Costa wrote:
> Signed-off-by: Glauber Costa <glommer@parallels.com>
> ---
>  mm/memcontrol.c | 16 +++++++---------
>  1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/mm/memcontrol.c b/mm/memcontrol.c
> index aa4e258..c024614 100644
> --- a/mm/memcontrol.c
> +++ b/mm/memcontrol.c
> @@ -2909,7 +2909,7 @@ int memcg_cache_id(struct mem_cgroup *memcg)
>   * operation, because that is its main call site.
>   *
>   * But when we create a new cache, we can call this as well if its parent
> - * is kmem-limited. That will have to hold set_limit_mutex as well.
> + * is kmem-limited. That will have to hold cgroup_lock as well.
>   */
>  int memcg_update_cache_sizes(struct mem_cgroup *memcg)
>  {
> @@ -2924,7 +2924,7 @@ int memcg_update_cache_sizes(struct mem_cgroup *memcg)
>  	 * the beginning of this conditional), is no longer 0. This
>  	 * guarantees only one process will set the following boolean
>  	 * to true. We don't need test_and_set because we're protected
> -	 * by the set_limit_mutex anyway.
> +	 * by the cgroup_lock anyway.
>  	 */
>  	memcg_kmem_set_activated(memcg);
>  
> @@ -3265,9 +3265,9 @@ void kmem_cache_destroy_memcg_children(struct kmem_cache *s)
>  	 *
>  	 * Still, we don't want anyone else freeing memcg_caches under our
>  	 * noses, which can happen if a new memcg comes to life. As usual,
> -	 * we'll take the set_limit_mutex to protect ourselves against this.
> +	 * we'll take the cgroup_lock to protect ourselves against this.
>  	 */
> -	mutex_lock(&set_limit_mutex);
> +	cgroup_lock();
>  	for (i = 0; i < memcg_limited_groups_array_size; i++) {
>  		c = s->memcg_params->memcg_caches[i];
>  		if (!c)
> @@ -3290,7 +3290,7 @@ void kmem_cache_destroy_memcg_children(struct kmem_cache *s)
>  		cancel_work_sync(&c->memcg_params->destroy);
>  		kmem_cache_destroy(c);
>  	}
> -	mutex_unlock(&set_limit_mutex);
> +	cgroup_unlock();
>  }
>  
>  struct create_work {
> @@ -4946,7 +4946,6 @@ static int memcg_update_kmem_limit(struct cgroup *cont, u64 val)
>  	 * can also get rid of the use_hierarchy check.
>  	 */
>  	cgroup_lock();
> -	mutex_lock(&set_limit_mutex);
>  	if (!memcg->kmem_account_flags && val != RESOURCE_MAX) {
>  		if (cgroup_task_count(cont) || memcg_has_children(memcg)) {
>  			ret = -EBUSY;
> @@ -4971,7 +4970,6 @@ static int memcg_update_kmem_limit(struct cgroup *cont, u64 val)
>  	} else
>  		ret = res_counter_set_limit(&memcg->kmem, val);
>  out:
> -	mutex_unlock(&set_limit_mutex);
>  	cgroup_unlock();
>  
>  	/*
> @@ -5029,9 +5027,9 @@ static int memcg_propagate_kmem(struct mem_cgroup *memcg)
>  	mem_cgroup_get(memcg);
>  	static_key_slow_inc(&memcg_kmem_enabled_key);
>  
> -	mutex_lock(&set_limit_mutex);
> +	cgroup_lock();
>  	ret = memcg_update_cache_sizes(memcg);
> -	mutex_unlock(&set_limit_mutex);
> +	cgroup_unlock();
>  #endif
>  out:
>  	return ret;
> -- 
> 1.7.11.7
> 

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