> The logic of uncharging is 
>  - decrement refcnt -> lock page cgroup -> remove page cgroup.
> But the logic of charging is
>  - lock page cgroup -> increment refcnt -> return.
> 
> Then, one charge will be added to a page_cgroup under being removed.
> This makes no big trouble (like panic) but one charge is lost.
> 
> This patch add a test at charging to verify page_cgroup's refcnt is
> greater than 0. If not, unlock and retry.
> 
> Signed-off-by: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>
> 
> 
>  mm/memcontrol.c |    9 +++++++--
>  1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> 
> Index: linux-2.6.23-rc8-mm2/mm/memcontrol.c
> ===================================================================
> --- linux-2.6.23-rc8-mm2.orig/mm/memcontrol.c
> +++ linux-2.6.23-rc8-mm2/mm/memcontrol.c
> @@ -271,14 +271,19 @@ int mem_cgroup_charge(struct page *page,
>  	 * to see if the cgroup page already has a page_cgroup associated
>  	 * with it
>  	 */
> +retry:
>  	lock_page_cgroup(page);
>  	pc = page_get_page_cgroup(page);
>  	/*
>  	 * The page_cgroup exists and the page has already been accounted
>  	 */
>  	if (pc) {
> -		atomic_inc(&pc->ref_cnt);
> -		goto done;
> +		if (unlikely(!atomic_inc_not_zero(&pc->ref_cnt))) {
> +			/* this page is under being uncharge ? */
> +			unlock_page_cgroup(page);

cpu_relax() here?

YAMAMOTO Takashi

> +			goto retry;
> +		} else
> +			goto done;
>  	}
>  
>  	unlock_page_cgroup(page);
_______________________________________________
Containers mailing list
Containers@lists.linux-foundation.org
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers