Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1762096Ab3DCIjJ (ORCPT ); Wed, 3 Apr 2013 04:39:09 -0400 Received: from szxga01-in.huawei.com ([119.145.14.64]:11629 "EHLO szxga01-in.huawei.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1761488Ab3DCIjG (ORCPT ); Wed, 3 Apr 2013 04:39:06 -0400 Message-ID: <515BEA61.9080100@huawei.com> Date: Wed, 3 Apr 2013 16:37:53 +0800 From: Li Zefan User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130307 Thunderbird/17.0.4 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Michal Hocko CC: Glauber Costa , Johannes Weiner , KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki , LKML , Cgroups , Subject: Re: [PATCH -v2] memcg: don't do cleanup manually if mem_cgroup_css_online() fails References: <515A8A40.6020406@huawei.com> <20130402121600.GK24345@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20130402141646.GQ24345@dhcp22.suse.cz> <515AE948.1000704@parallels.com> <20130402142825.GA32520@dhcp22.suse.cz> <515AEC3A.2030401@parallels.com> <20130402150422.GB32520@dhcp22.suse.cz> <515BA6C9.2000704@huawei.com> <20130403074300.GA14384@dhcp22.suse.cz> <515BDEF2.1080900@huawei.com> <20130403081843.GC14384@dhcp22.suse.cz> In-Reply-To: <20130403081843.GC14384@dhcp22.suse.cz> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Originating-IP: [10.135.68.215] X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1373 Lines: 32 >>> But memcg_update_cache_sizes calls memcg_kmem_clear_activated on the >>> error path. >>> >> >> But memcg_kmem_mark_dead() checks the ACCOUNT flag not the ACCOUNTED flag. >> Am I missing something? >> > > Dang. You are right! Glauber, is there any reason why > memcg_kmem_mark_dead checks only KMEM_ACCOUNTED_ACTIVE rather than > KMEM_ACCOUNTED_MASK? > > This all is very confusing to say the least. > > Anyway, this all means that Li's first patch is correct. I am not sure I > like it though. I think that the refcount cleanup should be done as > close to where it has been taken as possible otherwise we will end up in > this "chase the nasty details" again and again. There are definitely two > bugs here. The one introduced by e4715f01 and the other one introduced > even earlier (I haven't checked that history yet). I think we should do > something like the 2 follow up patches but if you guys think that the smaller > patch from Li is more appropriate then I will not block it. > Or we can queue my patch for 3.9, and then see if we want to change the tear down process, and if yes we make the change for 3.10. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/