[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20080813071505.930965A75@siro.lan>
Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2008 16:15:05 +0900 (JST)
From: yamamoto@...inux.co.jp (YAMAMOTO Takashi)
To: a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl
Cc: kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com, linux-mm@...ck.org,
menage@...gle.com, containers@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH][RFC] dirty balancing for cgroups
hi,
> > @@ -485,7 +502,10 @@ unsigned long mem_cgroup_isolate_pages(unsigned long nr_to_scan,
> > if (PageUnevictable(page) ||
> > (PageActive(page) && !active) ||
> > (!PageActive(page) && active)) {
> > - __mem_cgroup_move_lists(pc, page_lru(page));
> > + if (try_lock_page_cgroup(page)) {
> > + __mem_cgroup_move_lists(pc, page_lru(page));
> > + unlock_page_cgroup(page);
> > + }
> > continue;
> > }
>
> This chunk seems unrelated and lost....
it's necessary to protect from mem_cgroup_{set,clear}_dirty
which modify pc->flags without holding mz->lru_lock.
> I presonally dislike the != 0, == 0 comparisons for bitmask operations,
> they seem to make it harder to read somewhow. I prefer to write !(flags
> & mask) and (flags & mask), instead.
>
> I guess taste differs,...
yes, it seems different. :)
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