[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20090424133306.0d9fb2ce.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>
Date: Fri, 24 Apr 2009 13:33:06 +0900
From: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>
To: Daisuke Nishimura <nishimura@....nes.nec.co.jp>
Cc: "linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com" <balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
"hugh@...itas.com" <hugh@...itas.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH] fix swap entries is not reclaimed in proper way
for mem+swap controller
On Wed, 22 Apr 2009 14:38:33 +0900
Daisuke Nishimura <nishimura@....nes.nec.co.jp> wrote:
> > #ifdef CONFIG_CGROUP_MEM_RES_CTLR_SWAP
> > extern void mem_cgroup_uncharge_swap(swp_entry_t ent);
> > +extern void mem_cgroup_mark_swapcache_stale(struct page *page);
> > +extern void mem_cgroup_fixup_swapcache(struct page *page);
> > #else
> > static inline void mem_cgroup_uncharge_swap(swp_entry_t ent)
> > {
> > }
> > +static void mem_cgroup_check_mark_swapcache_stale(struct page *page)
> > +{
> > +}
> > +static void mem_cgroup_fixup_swapcache(struct page *page)
> > +{
> > +}
> > #endif
> >
> I think they should be defined in MEM_RES_CTLR case.
> Exhausting swap entries problem is not depend on MEM_RES_CTLR_SWAP.
>
Could you explain this more ? I can't understand.
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