[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20101007093545.429fe04a.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>
Date: Thu, 7 Oct 2010 09:35:45 +0900
From: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>
To: Minchan Kim <minchan.kim@...il.com>
Cc: Greg Thelen <gthelen@...gle.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
containers@...ts.osdl.org, Andrea Righi <arighi@...eler.com>,
Balbir Singh <balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Daisuke Nishimura <nishimura@....nes.nec.co.jp>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 04/10] memcg: disable local interrupts in
lock_page_cgroup()
On Wed, 6 Oct 2010 09:15:34 +0900
Minchan Kim <minchan.kim@...il.com> wrote:
> First of all, we could add your patch as it is and I don't expect any
> regression report about interrupt latency.
> That's because many embedded guys doesn't use mmotm and have a
> tendency to not report regression of VM.
> Even they don't use memcg. Hmm...
>
> I pass the decision to MAINTAINER Kame and Balbir.
> Thanks for the detail explanation.
>
Hmm. IRQ delay is a concern. So, my option is this. How do you think ?
1. remove local_irq_save()/restore() in lock/unlock_page_cgroup().
yes, I don't like it.
2. At moving charge, do this:
a) lock_page()/ or trylock_page()
b) wait_on_page_writeback()
c) do move_account under lock_page_cgroup().
c) unlock_page()
Then, Writeback updates will never come from IRQ context while
lock/unlock_page_cgroup() is held by move_account(). There will be no race.
Do I miss something ?
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