On Thu, 23 Jan 2014, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Thu 23-01-14 02:42:58, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> > >
> > > Actually both patches are needed. If we had only 2/2 then we wouldn't
> > > endless loop inside mem_cgroup_iter but we could still return root to
> > > caller all the time because
On Thu 23-01-14 02:42:58, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> On Wed, 22 Jan 2014, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Tue 21-01-14 13:18:42, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> > [...]
> > > We do have a confusing situation. The hang goes back to 3.10 but takes
> > > two different forms, because of intervening changes: in 3.10 and
On Wed, 22 Jan 2014, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Tue 21-01-14 13:18:42, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> [...]
> > We do have a confusing situation. The hang goes back to 3.10 but takes
> > two different forms, because of intervening changes: in 3.10 and 3.11
> > mem_cgroup_iter repeatedly returns root memcg
On Wed, 22 Jan 2014, Michal Hocko wrote:
On Tue 21-01-14 13:18:42, Hugh Dickins wrote:
[...]
We do have a confusing situation. The hang goes back to 3.10 but takes
two different forms, because of intervening changes: in 3.10 and 3.11
mem_cgroup_iter repeatedly returns root memcg to its
On Thu 23-01-14 02:42:58, Hugh Dickins wrote:
On Wed, 22 Jan 2014, Michal Hocko wrote:
On Tue 21-01-14 13:18:42, Hugh Dickins wrote:
[...]
We do have a confusing situation. The hang goes back to 3.10 but takes
two different forms, because of intervening changes: in 3.10 and 3.11
On Thu, 23 Jan 2014, Michal Hocko wrote:
On Thu 23-01-14 02:42:58, Hugh Dickins wrote:
Actually both patches are needed. If we had only 2/2 then we wouldn't
endless loop inside mem_cgroup_iter but we could still return root to
caller all the time because mem_cgroup_iter_load would
On Tue 21-01-14 13:18:42, Hugh Dickins wrote:
[...]
> We do have a confusing situation. The hang goes back to 3.10 but takes
> two different forms, because of intervening changes: in 3.10 and 3.11
> mem_cgroup_iter repeatedly returns root memcg to its caller, in 3.12 and
> 3.13 mem_cgroup_iter
On Tue 21-01-14 11:42:19, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Tue, 21 Jan 2014 11:45:43 +0100 Michal Hocko wrote:
>
> > 19f39402864e (memcg: simplify mem_cgroup_iter) has reorganized
> > mem_cgroup_iter code in order to simplify it. A part of that change was
> > dropping an optimization which didn't call
On Tue 21-01-14 11:42:19, Andrew Morton wrote:
On Tue, 21 Jan 2014 11:45:43 +0100 Michal Hocko mho...@suse.cz wrote:
19f39402864e (memcg: simplify mem_cgroup_iter) has reorganized
mem_cgroup_iter code in order to simplify it. A part of that change was
dropping an optimization which didn't
On Tue 21-01-14 13:18:42, Hugh Dickins wrote:
[...]
We do have a confusing situation. The hang goes back to 3.10 but takes
two different forms, because of intervening changes: in 3.10 and 3.11
mem_cgroup_iter repeatedly returns root memcg to its caller, in 3.12 and
3.13 mem_cgroup_iter
On Tue, 21 Jan 2014, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Tue, 21 Jan 2014 11:45:43 +0100 Michal Hocko wrote:
>
> > 19f39402864e (memcg: simplify mem_cgroup_iter) has reorganized
> > mem_cgroup_iter code in order to simplify it. A part of that change was
> > dropping an optimization which didn't call
On Tue, 21 Jan 2014 11:45:43 +0100 Michal Hocko wrote:
> 19f39402864e (memcg: simplify mem_cgroup_iter) has reorganized
> mem_cgroup_iter code in order to simplify it. A part of that change was
> dropping an optimization which didn't call css_tryget on the root of
> the walked tree. The patch
19f39402864e (memcg: simplify mem_cgroup_iter) has reorganized
mem_cgroup_iter code in order to simplify it. A part of that change was
dropping an optimization which didn't call css_tryget on the root of
the walked tree. The patch however didn't change the css_put part in
mem_cgroup_iter which
19f39402864e (memcg: simplify mem_cgroup_iter) has reorganized
mem_cgroup_iter code in order to simplify it. A part of that change was
dropping an optimization which didn't call css_tryget on the root of
the walked tree. The patch however didn't change the css_put part in
mem_cgroup_iter which
On Tue, 21 Jan 2014 11:45:43 +0100 Michal Hocko mho...@suse.cz wrote:
19f39402864e (memcg: simplify mem_cgroup_iter) has reorganized
mem_cgroup_iter code in order to simplify it. A part of that change was
dropping an optimization which didn't call css_tryget on the root of
the walked tree.
On Tue, 21 Jan 2014, Andrew Morton wrote:
On Tue, 21 Jan 2014 11:45:43 +0100 Michal Hocko mho...@suse.cz wrote:
19f39402864e (memcg: simplify mem_cgroup_iter) has reorganized
mem_cgroup_iter code in order to simplify it. A part of that change was
dropping an optimization which didn't call
16 matches
Mail list logo
