(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<[email protected]> >>> CC: Tejun Heo<[email protected]> >>> CC: Li Zefan<[email protected]> >>> CC: Kamezawa Hiroyuki<[email protected]> >>> CC: Johannes Weiner<[email protected]> >>> CC: Michal Hocko<[email protected]> >> >> 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<[email protected]> > > 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 _______________________________________________ Devel mailing list [email protected] https://openvz.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
