memcg: update documentation v5
in [Kernel]
|
Prev: blkio: Changes to IO controller additional stats patches
Next: linux-next: build warnings after merge of the final tree (scsi tree related)
From: Balbir Singh on 13 Apr 2010 11:10 * Vivek Goyal <vgoyal(a)redhat.com> [2010-04-13 10:03:02]: > On Tue, Apr 13, 2010 at 09:57:18AM -0400, Vivek Goyal wrote: > > On Tue, Apr 13, 2010 at 01:45:53PM +0900, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote: > > > > Typed wrong email id last time and mail bounced. So here is another > attempt. > > > [..] > > > -2. Locking > > > +2.6 Locking > > > > > > -The memory controller uses the following hierarchy > > > + lock_page_cgroup()/unlock_page_cgroup() should not be called under > > > + mapping->tree_lock. > > > > > > > Because I never understood very well, I will ask. Why lock_page_cgroup() > > should not be called under mapping->tree_lock? > > The closest reference I can find to a conversation regarding this is http://linux.derkeiler.com/Mailing-Lists/Kernel/2009-05/msg05158.html -- Three Cheers, Balbir -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo(a)vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
From: Vivek Goyal on 13 Apr 2010 11:20
On Tue, Apr 13, 2010 at 08:38:43PM +0530, Balbir Singh wrote: > * Vivek Goyal <vgoyal(a)redhat.com> [2010-04-13 10:03:02]: > > > On Tue, Apr 13, 2010 at 09:57:18AM -0400, Vivek Goyal wrote: > > > On Tue, Apr 13, 2010 at 01:45:53PM +0900, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote: > > > > > > > Typed wrong email id last time and mail bounced. So here is another > > attempt. > > > > > [..] > > > > -2. Locking > > > > +2.6 Locking > > > > > > > > -The memory controller uses the following hierarchy > > > > + lock_page_cgroup()/unlock_page_cgroup() should not be called under > > > > + mapping->tree_lock. > > > > > > > > > > Because I never understood very well, I will ask. Why lock_page_cgroup() > > > should not be called under mapping->tree_lock? > > > > > The closest reference I can find to a conversation regarding this is > > http://linux.derkeiler.com/Mailing-Lists/Kernel/2009-05/msg05158.html > Thanks Balbir. So basically idea is that page_cgroup_lock() does not disable interrupts hence can be interrupted. So don't do lock_page_cgroup() in interrupt context at all otherwise it can lead to various kind of deadlock scenarios. One of those scenarios is lock_page_cgroup() under mapping->tree_lock. That helps. Thanks Vivek > -- > Three Cheers, > Balbir -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo(a)vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ |