[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20081202164751.0db6ea01.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>
Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2008 16:47:51 +0900
From: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>
To: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
Balbir Singh <balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] memcg: mem_cgroup->prev_priority protected by lock.
take2
On Tue, 2 Dec 2008 16:44:18 +0900 (JST)
KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com> wrote:
>
> Currently, mem_cgroup doesn't have own lock and almost its member doesn't need.
> (e.g. mem_cgroup->info is protected by zone lock, mem_cgroup->stat is
> per cpu variable)
>
> However, there is one explict exception. mem_cgroup->prev_priorit need lock,
> but doesn't protect.
> Luckly, this is NOT bug because prev_priority isn't used for current reclaim code.
>
> However, we plan to use prev_priority future again.
> Therefore, fixing is better.
>
>
> In addision, we plan to reuse this lock for another member.
> Then "reclaim_param_lock" name is better than "prev_priority_lock".
>
>
>
> Signed-off-by: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>
Acked-by: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>
Thank you, I'll queue this.
-Kame
> ---
> mm/memcontrol.c | 18 +++++++++++++++++-
> 1 file changed, 17 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> Index: b/mm/memcontrol.c
> ===================================================================
> --- a/mm/memcontrol.c
> +++ b/mm/memcontrol.c
> @@ -142,6 +142,11 @@ struct mem_cgroup {
> */
> struct mem_cgroup_lru_info info;
>
> + /*
> + protect against reclaim related member.
> + */
> + spinlock_t reclaim_param_lock;
> +
> int prev_priority; /* for recording reclaim priority */
>
> /*
> @@ -393,18 +398,28 @@ int mem_cgroup_calc_mapped_ratio(struct
> */
> int mem_cgroup_get_reclaim_priority(struct mem_cgroup *mem)
> {
> - return mem->prev_priority;
> + int prev_priority;
> +
> + spin_lock(&mem->reclaim_param_lock);
> + prev_priority = mem->prev_priority;
> + spin_unlock(&mem->reclaim_param_lock);
> +
> + return prev_priority;
> }
>
> void mem_cgroup_note_reclaim_priority(struct mem_cgroup *mem, int priority)
> {
> + spin_lock(&mem->reclaim_param_lock);
> if (priority < mem->prev_priority)
> mem->prev_priority = priority;
> + spin_unlock(&mem->reclaim_param_lock);
> }
>
> void mem_cgroup_record_reclaim_priority(struct mem_cgroup *mem, int priority)
> {
> + spin_lock(&mem->reclaim_param_lock);
> mem->prev_priority = priority;
> + spin_unlock(&mem->reclaim_param_lock);
> }
>
> /*
> @@ -1967,6 +1982,7 @@ mem_cgroup_create(struct cgroup_subsys *
> }
>
> mem->last_scanned_child = NULL;
> + spin_lock_init(&mem->reclaim_param_lock);
>
> return &mem->css;
> free_out:
>
>
>
--
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