[Devel] Re: [PATCH 00/23] slab+slub accounting for memcg

[Glauber Costa]

On 04/30/2012 06:43 PM, Suleiman Souhlal wrote:
>> I am leaving destruction of caches out of the series, although most
>> >  of the infrastructure for that is here, since we did it in earlier
>> >  series. This is basically because right now Kame is reworking it for
>> >  user memcg, and I like the new proposed behavior a lot more. We all seemed
>> >  to have agreed that reclaim is an interesting problem by itself, and
>> >  is not included in this already too complicated series. Please note
>> >  that this is still marked as experimental, so we have so room. A proper
>> >  shrinker implementation is a hard requirement to take the kmem controller
>> >  out of the experimental state.
> We will have to be careful for cache destruction.
> I found several races between allocation and destruction, in my patchset.
>
> I think we should consider doing the uncharging of kmem when
> destroying a memcg in mem_cgroup_destroy() instead of in
> pre_destroy(), because it's still possible that there are threads in
> the cgroup while pre_destroy() is being called (or for threads to be
> moved into the cgroup).

I found some problems here as well.
I am trying to work ontop of what Kamezawa posted for pre_destroy() 
rework. I have one or two incorrect uncharging issues to solve, that's 
actually what is holding me for posting a new version.

expected soon