[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <486F0976.7010104@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date: Sat, 05 Jul 2008 11:11:10 +0530
From: Balbir Singh <balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>
CC: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
"hugh@...itas.com" <hugh@...itas.com>,
"nishimura@....nes.nec.co.jp" <nishimura@....nes.nec.co.jp>,
"yamamoto@...inux.co.jp" <yamamoto@...inux.co.jp>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] memcg: handle shmem's swap cache (Was 2.6.26-rc8-mm1
KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote:
> My swapcache accounting under memcg patch failed to catch tmpfs(shmem)'s one.
> Can I test this under -mm tree ?
> (If -mm is busy, I'm not in hurry.)
> This patch works well in my box.
> =
> SwapCache handling fix.
>
> shmem's swapcache behavior is a little different from anonymous's one and
> memcg failed to handle it. This patch tries to fix it.
>
> After this:
>
> Any page marked as SwapCache is not uncharged. (delelte_from_swap_cache()
> delete the SwapCache flag.)
>
> To check a shmem-page-cache is alive or not we use
> page->mapping && !PageAnon(page) instead of
> pc->flags & PAGE_CGROUP_FLAG_CACHE.
>
> Signed-off-by: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>
Though I am not opposed to this, I do sit up and think if keeping the reference
count around could avoid this complexity and from my point, the maintenance
overhead of this logic/code (I fear there might be more special cases :( )
The trade-off is complexity versus the overhead of reference counting.
--
Warm Regards,
Balbir Singh
Linux Technology Center
IBM, ISTL
--
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