* Re: [PATCH v2] mm: memcontrol: remove obsolete comment of mem_cgroup_unmark_under_oom()
@ 2020-09-30 1:34 linmiaohe
2020-09-30 8:43 ` Michal Hocko
0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread
From: linmiaohe @ 2020-09-30 1:34 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Michal Hocko; +Cc: hannes, vdavydov.dev, akpm, cgroups, linux-mm, linux-kernel
Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com> wrote:
> On Thu 17-09-20 06:59:00, Miaohe Lin wrote:
>> Since commit 79dfdaccd1d5 ("memcg: make oom_lock 0 and 1 based rather
>> than counter"), the mem_cgroup_unmark_under_oom() is added and the
>> comment of the mem_cgroup_oom_unlock() is moved here. But this comment
>> make no sense here because mem_cgroup_oom_lock() does not operate on under_oom field.
>
>OK, so I've looked into this more deeply and I finally remember why we have this comment here. The point is that under_oom shouldn't underflow and that we have to explicitly check for > 0 because a new child memcg could have been added between mem_cgroup_mark_under_oom and mem_cgroup_unmark_under_oom.
>
>So the comment makes sense although it is not as helpful as it could be.
>I think that changing it to the following will be more usefule
>
> /*
> * Be careful about under_oom underflows becase a child memcg
> * could have neem added after mem_cgroup_mark_under_oom
Should it be s/neem/been/ ?
> */
Many thanks for detailed explanation. Will fix it in v2. Thanks again.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v2] mm: memcontrol: remove obsolete comment of mem_cgroup_unmark_under_oom()
2020-09-30 1:34 [PATCH v2] mm: memcontrol: remove obsolete comment of mem_cgroup_unmark_under_oom() linmiaohe
@ 2020-09-30 8:43 ` Michal Hocko
0 siblings, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: Michal Hocko @ 2020-09-30 8:43 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linmiaohe; +Cc: hannes, vdavydov.dev, akpm, cgroups, linux-mm, linux-kernel
On Wed 30-09-20 01:34:25, linmiaohe wrote:
> Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com> wrote:
> > On Thu 17-09-20 06:59:00, Miaohe Lin wrote:
> >> Since commit 79dfdaccd1d5 ("memcg: make oom_lock 0 and 1 based rather
> >> than counter"), the mem_cgroup_unmark_under_oom() is added and the
> >> comment of the mem_cgroup_oom_unlock() is moved here. But this comment
> >> make no sense here because mem_cgroup_oom_lock() does not operate on under_oom field.
> >
> >OK, so I've looked into this more deeply and I finally remember why we have this comment here. The point is that under_oom shouldn't underflow and that we have to explicitly check for > 0 because a new child memcg could have been added between mem_cgroup_mark_under_oom and mem_cgroup_unmark_under_oom.
> >
> >So the comment makes sense although it is not as helpful as it could be.
> >I think that changing it to the following will be more usefule
> >
> > /*
> > * Be careful about under_oom underflows becase a child memcg
> > * could have neem added after mem_cgroup_mark_under_oom
>
> Should it be s/neem/been/ ?
yep, fat fingers...
>
> > */
>
> Many thanks for detailed explanation. Will fix it in v2. Thanks again.
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v2] mm: memcontrol: remove obsolete comment of mem_cgroup_unmark_under_oom()
2020-09-17 10:59 ` Miaohe Lin
(?)
@ 2020-09-29 14:29 ` Michal Hocko
-1 siblings, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: Michal Hocko @ 2020-09-29 14:29 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Miaohe Lin; +Cc: hannes, vdavydov.dev, akpm, cgroups, linux-mm, linux-kernel
On Thu 17-09-20 06:59:00, Miaohe Lin wrote:
> Since commit 79dfdaccd1d5 ("memcg: make oom_lock 0 and 1 based rather than
> counter"), the mem_cgroup_unmark_under_oom() is added and the comment of
> the mem_cgroup_oom_unlock() is moved here. But this comment make no sense
> here because mem_cgroup_oom_lock() does not operate on under_oom field.
OK, so I've looked into this more deeply and I finally remember why we
have this comment here. The point is that under_oom shouldn't underflow
and that we have to explicitly check for > 0 because a new child memcg
could have been added between mem_cgroup_mark_under_oom and
mem_cgroup_unmark_under_oom.
So the comment makes sense although it is not as helpful as it could be.
I think that changing it to the following will be more usefule
/*
* Be careful about under_oom underflows becase a child memcg
* could have neem added after mem_cgroup_mark_under_oom
*/
>
> Signed-off-by: Miaohe Lin <linmiaohe@huawei.com>
> ---
> mm/memcontrol.c | 4 ----
> 1 file changed, 4 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/mm/memcontrol.c b/mm/memcontrol.c
> index cd5f83de9a6f..e44f5afaf78b 100644
> --- a/mm/memcontrol.c
> +++ b/mm/memcontrol.c
> @@ -1848,10 +1848,6 @@ static void mem_cgroup_unmark_under_oom(struct mem_cgroup *memcg)
> {
> struct mem_cgroup *iter;
>
> - /*
> - * When a new child is created while the hierarchy is under oom,
> - * mem_cgroup_oom_lock() may not be called. Watch for underflow.
> - */
> spin_lock(&memcg_oom_lock);
> for_each_mem_cgroup_tree(iter, memcg)
> if (iter->under_oom > 0)
> --
> 2.19.1
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v2] mm: memcontrol: remove obsolete comment of mem_cgroup_unmark_under_oom()
@ 2020-09-17 10:59 ` Miaohe Lin
0 siblings, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: Miaohe Lin @ 2020-09-17 10:59 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: hannes, mhocko, vdavydov.dev, akpm
Cc: cgroups, linux-mm, linux-kernel, linmiaohe
Since commit 79dfdaccd1d5 ("memcg: make oom_lock 0 and 1 based rather than
counter"), the mem_cgroup_unmark_under_oom() is added and the comment of
the mem_cgroup_oom_unlock() is moved here. But this comment make no sense
here because mem_cgroup_oom_lock() does not operate on under_oom field.
Signed-off-by: Miaohe Lin <linmiaohe@huawei.com>
---
mm/memcontrol.c | 4 ----
1 file changed, 4 deletions(-)
diff --git a/mm/memcontrol.c b/mm/memcontrol.c
index cd5f83de9a6f..e44f5afaf78b 100644
--- a/mm/memcontrol.c
+++ b/mm/memcontrol.c
@@ -1848,10 +1848,6 @@ static void mem_cgroup_unmark_under_oom(struct mem_cgroup *memcg)
{
struct mem_cgroup *iter;
- /*
- * When a new child is created while the hierarchy is under oom,
- * mem_cgroup_oom_lock() may not be called. Watch for underflow.
- */
spin_lock(&memcg_oom_lock);
for_each_mem_cgroup_tree(iter, memcg)
if (iter->under_oom > 0)
--
2.19.1
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v2] mm: memcontrol: remove obsolete comment of mem_cgroup_unmark_under_oom()
@ 2020-09-17 10:59 ` Miaohe Lin
0 siblings, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: Miaohe Lin @ 2020-09-17 10:59 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: hannes-druUgvl0LCNAfugRpC6u6w, mhocko-DgEjT+Ai2ygdnm+yROfE0A,
vdavydov.dev-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w,
akpm-de/tnXTf+JLsfHDXvbKv3WD2FQJk+8+b
Cc: cgroups-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA, linux-mm-Bw31MaZKKs3YtjvyW6yDsg,
linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA,
linmiaohe-hv44wF8Li93QT0dZR+AlfA
Since commit 79dfdaccd1d5 ("memcg: make oom_lock 0 and 1 based rather than
counter"), the mem_cgroup_unmark_under_oom() is added and the comment of
the mem_cgroup_oom_unlock() is moved here. But this comment make no sense
here because mem_cgroup_oom_lock() does not operate on under_oom field.
Signed-off-by: Miaohe Lin <linmiaohe-hv44wF8Li93QT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org>
---
mm/memcontrol.c | 4 ----
1 file changed, 4 deletions(-)
diff --git a/mm/memcontrol.c b/mm/memcontrol.c
index cd5f83de9a6f..e44f5afaf78b 100644
--- a/mm/memcontrol.c
+++ b/mm/memcontrol.c
@@ -1848,10 +1848,6 @@ static void mem_cgroup_unmark_under_oom(struct mem_cgroup *memcg)
{
struct mem_cgroup *iter;
- /*
- * When a new child is created while the hierarchy is under oom,
- * mem_cgroup_oom_lock() may not be called. Watch for underflow.
- */
spin_lock(&memcg_oom_lock);
for_each_mem_cgroup_tree(iter, memcg)
if (iter->under_oom > 0)
--
2.19.1
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2020-09-30 8:43 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2020-09-30 1:34 [PATCH v2] mm: memcontrol: remove obsolete comment of mem_cgroup_unmark_under_oom() linmiaohe
2020-09-30 8:43 ` Michal Hocko
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2020-09-17 10:59 Miaohe Lin
2020-09-17 10:59 ` Miaohe Lin
2020-09-29 14:29 ` Michal Hocko
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.