[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20100222180013.GB4052@linux>
Date: Mon, 22 Feb 2010 19:00:14 +0100
From: Andrea Righi <arighi@...eler.com>
To: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>
Cc: Balbir Singh <balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Suleiman Souhlal <suleiman@...gle.com>,
Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@...hat.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
containers@...ts.linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] memcg: dirty pages accounting and limiting
infrastructure
On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 09:22:42AM +0900, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote:
[snip]
> > +static unsigned long get_dirty_bytes(struct mem_cgroup *memcg)
> > +{
> > + struct cgroup *cgrp = memcg->css.cgroup;
> > + unsigned long dirty_bytes;
> > +
> > + /* root ? */
> > + if (cgrp->parent == NULL)
> > + return vm_dirty_bytes;
>
> We have mem_cgroup_is_root() macro.
>
> > +
> > + spin_lock(&memcg->reclaim_param_lock);
> > + dirty_bytes = memcg->dirty_bytes;
> > + spin_unlock(&memcg->reclaim_param_lock);
> > +
> > + return dirty_bytes;
> > +}
> Hmm...do we need spinlock ? You use "unsigned long", then, read-write
> is always atomic if not read-modify-write.
I think I simply copy&paste the memcg->swappiness case. But I agree,
read-write should be atomic.
-Andrea
--
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