[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20100319102332.f1d81c8d.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>
Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2010 10:23:32 +0900
From: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>
To: balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com
Cc: Andrea Righi <arighi@...eler.com>,
Daisuke Nishimura <nishimura@....nes.nec.co.jp>,
Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@...hat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Trond Myklebust <trond.myklebust@....uio.no>,
Suleiman Souhlal <suleiman@...gle.com>,
Greg Thelen <gthelen@...gle.com>,
"Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill@...temov.name>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
containers@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH -mmotm 1/5] memcg: disable irq at page cgroup lock
On Thu, 18 Mar 2010 21:58:55 +0530
Balbir Singh <balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> * KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com> [2010-03-18 13:35:27]:
> > Then, no probelm. It's ok to add mem_cgroup_udpate_stat() indpendent from
> > mem_cgroup_update_file_mapped(). The look may be messy but it's not your
> > fault. But please write "why add new function" to patch description.
> >
> > I'm sorry for wasting your time.
>
> Do we need to go down this route? We could check the stat and do the
> correct thing. In case of FILE_MAPPED, always grab page_cgroup_lock
> and for others potentially look at trylock. It is OK for different
> stats to be protected via different locks.
>
I _don't_ want to see a mixture of spinlock and trylock in a function.
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