Re: [PATCH v7 00/10] Request for Inclusion: per-cgroup tcp memorypressure

[Glauber Costa]

On 11/30/2011 12:11 AM, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote:
> On Tue, 29 Nov 2011 21:56:51 -0200
> Glauber Costa<glommer@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>  wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > This patchset implements per-cgroup tcp memory pressure controls. It did not change
> > significantly since last submission: rather, it just merges the comments Kame had.
> > Most of them are style-related and/or Documentation, but there are two real bugs he
> > managed to spot (thanks)
> >
> > Please let me know if there is anything else I should address.
>
> After reading all codes again, I feel some strange. Could you clarify ?
>
> Here.
> ==
> +void sock_update_memcg(struct sock *sk)
> +{
> +	/* right now a socket spends its whole life in the same cgroup */
> +	if (sk->sk_cgrp) {
> +		WARN_ON(1);
> +		return;
> +	}
> +	if (static_branch(&memcg_socket_limit_enabled)) {
> +		struct mem_cgroup *memcg;
> +
> +		BUG_ON(!sk->sk_prot->proto_cgroup);
> +
> +		rcu_read_lock();
> +		memcg = mem_cgroup_from_task(current);
> +		if (!mem_cgroup_is_root(memcg))
> +			sk->sk_cgrp = sk->sk_prot->proto_cgroup(memcg);
> +		rcu_read_unlock();
> ==
>
> sk->sk_cgrp is set to a memcg without any reference count.
>
> Then, no check for preventing rmdir() and freeing memcgroup.
>
> Is there some css_get() or mem_cgroup_get() somewhere ?

There were a css_get in the first version of this patchset. It was 
removed, however, because it was deemed anti-intuitive to prevent rmdir, 
since we can't know which sockets are blocking it, or do anything about 
it. Or did I misunderstand something ?
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/