From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from psmtp.com (na3sys010amx104.postini.com [74.125.245.104]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with SMTP id D6BC26B0062 for ; Mon, 18 Jun 2012 20:11:57 -0400 (EDT) Received: from m2.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (unknown [10.0.50.72]) by fgwmail6.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id DD63B3EE0BB for ; Tue, 19 Jun 2012 09:11:55 +0900 (JST) Received: from smail (m2 [127.0.0.1]) by outgoing.m2.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id C63F845DE55 for ; Tue, 19 Jun 2012 09:11:55 +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 B083145DD74 for ; Tue, 19 Jun 2012 09:11:55 +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 A238B1DB803A for ; Tue, 19 Jun 2012 09:11:55 +0900 (JST) Received: from ml14.s.css.fujitsu.com (ml14.s.css.fujitsu.com [10.240.81.134]) by s2.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5DE6C1DB8038 for ; Tue, 19 Jun 2012 09:11:55 +0900 (JST) Message-ID: <4FDFC34B.3010003@jp.fujitsu.com> Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2012 09:09:47 +0900 From: Kamezawa Hiroyuki MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] memcg: remove -EINTR at rmdir() References: <4FDF17A3.9060202@jp.fujitsu.com> <20120618133012.GB2313@tiehlicka.suse.cz> In-Reply-To: <20120618133012.GB2313@tiehlicka.suse.cz> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-2022-JP Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Michal Hocko Cc: linux-mm , Linux Kernel Mailing List , cgroups@vger.kernel.org, Andrew Morton , Johannes Weiner (2012/06/18 22:30), Michal Hocko wrote: > On Mon 18-06-12 20:57:23, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote: >> 2 follow-up patches for "memcg: move charges to root cgroup if use_hierarchy=0", >> developped/tested onto memcg-devel tree. Maybe no HUNK with -next and -mm.... >> -Kame >> == >> memcg: remove -EINTR at rmdir() >> >> By commit "memcg: move charges to root cgroup if use_hierarchy=0", >> no memory reclaiming will occur at removing memory cgroup. > > OK, so the there are only 2 reasons why move_parent could fail in this > path. 1) it races with somebody else who is uncharging or moving the > charge and 2) THP split. > 1) works for us and 2) doens't seem to be serious enough to expect that > it would stall rmdir on the group for unbound amount of time so the > change is safe (can we make this into the changelog please?). > Yes. But the failure of move_parent() (-EBUSY) will be retried. Remaining problems are - attaching task while pre_destroy() is called. - creating child cgroup while pre_destroy() is called. I think I need to make a patch for cgroup layer as I previously posted. I'd like to try again. Thanks, -Kame -- 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