[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20080818165856.0faeb0bb.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>
Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2008 16:58:56 +0900
From: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>
To: yamamoto@...inux.co.jp (YAMAMOTO Takashi)
Cc: a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl, 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
On Wed, 13 Aug 2008 16:15:05 +0900 (JST)
yamamoto@...inux.co.jp (YAMAMOTO Takashi) wrote:
> 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'm now writing a patch to make page_cgroup->flags to be atomic_ops.
Don't worry about this.
(With remove-page-lock-cgroup patch, atomic_ops patch's performace is
quite well.)
Thanks,
-Kame
--
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