[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20110119121043.GB2232@cmpxchg.org>
Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2011 13:10:43 +0100
From: Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>
To: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>
Cc: "linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"akpm@...ux-foundation.org" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
"nishimura@....nes.nec.co.jp" <nishimura@....nes.nec.co.jp>,
"balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com" <balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] memcg: fix USED bit handling at uncharge in THP
Hello KAMEZAWA-san,
On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 11:40:49AM +0900, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote:
> +void mem_cgroup_split_huge_fixup(struct page *head, struct page *tail)
> +{
> + struct page_cgroup *head_pc = lookup_page_cgroup(head);
> + struct page_cgroup *tail_pc = lookup_page_cgroup(tail);
> + unsigned long flags;
> +
> + /*
> + * We have no races witch charge/uncharge but will have races with
> + * page state accounting.
> + */
> + move_lock_page_cgroup(head_pc, &flags);
> +
> + tail_pc->mem_cgroup = head_pc->mem_cgroup;
> + smp_wmb(); /* see __commit_charge() */
I thought the barriers were needed because charging does not hold the
lru lock. But here we do, and all the 'lockless' read-sides do so as
well. Am I missing something or can this barrier be removed?
Hannes
--
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