[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20080602021540.5C6705A0D@siro.lan>
Date: Mon, 2 Jun 2008 11:15:40 +0900 (JST)
From: yamamoto@...inux.co.jp (YAMAMOTO Takashi)
To: kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com
Cc: linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, xemul@...nvz.org, menage@...gle.com,
lizf@...fujitsu.com
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 1/2] memcg: res_counter hierarchy
> @@ -135,13 +138,118 @@ ssize_t res_counter_write(struct res_cou
> if (*end != '\0')
> goto out_free;
> }
> - spin_lock_irqsave(&counter->lock, flags);
> - val = res_counter_member(counter, member);
> - *val = tmp;
> - spin_unlock_irqrestore(&counter->lock, flags);
> - ret = nbytes;
> + if (member != RES_LIMIT || !callback) {
is there any reason to check member != RES_LIMIT here,
rather than in callers?
> +/*
> + * Move resource to its parent.
> + * child->limit -= val.
> + * parent->usage -= val.
> + * parent->limit -= val.
s/limit/for_children/
> + */
> +
> +int res_counter_repay_resource(struct res_counter *child,
> + struct res_counter *parent,
> + unsigned long long val,
> + res_shrink_callback_t callback, int retry)
can you reduce gratuitous differences between
res_counter_borrow_resource and res_counter_repay_resource?
eg. 'success' vs 'done', how to decrement 'retry'.
YAMAMOTO Takashi
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists