[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <484FAB04.2010800@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2008 12:37:57 +0200 (MEST)
From: Andrea Righi <righi.andrea@...il.com>
To: Dave Hansen <dave@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com, containers@...ts.osdl.org,
menage@...gle.com, xemul@...nvz.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 5/5] refresh VM committed space after a task migration
Dave Hansen wrote:
> On Tue, 2008-06-10 at 01:33 +0200, Andrea Righi wrote:
>> + preempt_disable();
>> + committed = atomic_long_read(&p->vm_committed_space);
>> + atomic_long_sub(committed, &old_mem->vmacct.vm_committed_space);
>> + atomic_long_add(committed, &mem->vmacct.vm_committed_space);
>> + preempt_enable();
>> out:
>> mmput(mm);
>> }
>
> Why bother with the preempt stuff here? What does the actually protect
> against? I assume that you're trying to keep other tasks that might run
> on this CPU from seeing weird, inconsistent numbers in here. Is there
> some other looks that keeps *other* cpus from seeing this?
>
> In any case, I think it needs a big, fat comment.
Yes, true, mem_cgroup_move_task() is called after the task->cgroups
pointer has been changed. So, even if task changes its committed space
between the atomic_long_sub() and atomic_long_add() it will be correctly
accounted in the new cgroup.
-Andrea
--
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