> * __mem_cgroup_free will issue static_key_slow_dec because this
> * memcg is active already. If the later initialization fails
> * then the cgroup core triggers the cleanup so we do not have
> * to do it here.
> */
>> - mem_cgroup_get(memcg);
>> static_key_slow_inc(&memcg_kmem_enabled_key);
>>
>> mutex_lock(&set_limit_mutex);
>> @@ -5823,23 +5814,33 @@ static int memcg_init_kmem(struct mem_cgroup *memcg,
>> struct cgroup_subsys *ss)
>> return mem_cgroup_sockets_init(memcg, ss);
>> };
>>
>> -static void kmem_cgroup_destroy(struct mem_cgroup *memcg)
>> +static void kmem_cgroup_css_offline(struct mem_cgroup *memcg)
>> {
>> - mem_cgroup_sockets_destroy(memcg);
>> + /*
>> + * kmem charges can outlive the cgroup. In the case of slab
>> + * pages, for instance, a page contain objects from various
>> + * processes, so it is unfeasible to migrate them away. We
>> + * need to reference count the memcg because of that.
>> + */
>
> I would prefer if we could merge all three comments in this function
> into a single one. What about something like the following?
> /*
> * kmem charges can outlive the cgroup. In the case of slab
> * pages, for instance, a page contain objects from various
> * processes. As we prevent from taking a reference for every
> * such allocation we have to be careful when doing uncharge
> * (see memcg_uncharge_kmem) and here during offlining.
> * The idea is that that only the _last_ uncharge which sees
> * the dead memcg will drop the last reference. An additional
> * reference is taken here before the group is marked dead
> * which is then paired with css_put during uncharge resp. here.
> * Although this might sound strange as this path is called when
> * the reference has already dropped down to 0 and shouldn't be
> * incremented anymore (css_tryget would fail) we do not have
> * other options because of the kmem allocations lifetime.
> */
>> + css_get(&memcg->css);
>
> I think that you need a write memory barrier here because css_get
> nor memcg_kmem_mark_dead implies it. memcg_uncharge_kmem uses
> memcg_kmem_test_and_clear_dead which imply a full memory barrier but it
> should see the elevated reference count. No?
>
We don't use barriers for any other kind of reference counting. What is
different here?
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
