Re: [PATCH v4 05/25] memcg: Always free struct memcg through schedule_work()

[Kamezawa Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>]

(2012/06/18 21:10), Glauber Costa wrote:
> On 06/18/2012 04:07 PM, Kamezawa Hiroyuki wrote:
>> (2012/06/18 19:27), Glauber Costa wrote:
>>> Right now we free struct memcg with kfree right after a
>>> rcu grace period, but defer it if we need to use vfree() to get
>>> rid of that memory area. We do that by need, because we need vfree
>>> to be called in a process context.
>>>
>>> This patch unifies this behavior, by ensuring that even kfree will
>>> happen in a separate thread. The goal is to have a stable place to
>>> call the upcoming jump label destruction function outside the realm
>>> of the complicated and quite far-reaching cgroup lock (that can't be
>>> held when calling neither the cpu_hotplug.lock nor the jump_label_mutex)
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Glauber Costa<glommer@parallels.com>
>>> CC: Tejun Heo<tj@kernel.org>
>>> CC: Li Zefan<lizefan@huawei.com>
>>> CC: Kamezawa Hiroyuki<kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>
>>> CC: Johannes Weiner<hannes@cmpxchg.org>
>>> CC: Michal Hocko<mhocko@suse.cz>
>>
>> How about cut out this patch and merge first as simple cleanu up and
>> to reduce patch stack on your side ?
>>
>> Acked-by: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki<kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>
> 
> I believe this is already in the -mm tree (from the sock memcg fixes)
> 
> But actually, my main trouble with this series here, is that I am basing
> it on Pekka's tree, while some of the fixes are in -mm already.
> If I'd base it on -mm I would lose some of the stuff as well.
> 
> Maybe Pekka can merge the current -mm with his tree?
> 
> So far I am happy with getting comments from people about the code, so I
> did not get overly concerned about that.
> 

Sure. thank you.
-Kame