[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAHH2K0Yuji2_2pMdzEaMvRx0KE7OOaoEGT+OK4gJgTcOPKuT9g@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2011 23:01:46 -0700
From: Greg Thelen <gthelen@...gle.com>
To: Glauber Costa <glommer@...allels.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, paul@...lmenage.org,
lizf@...fujitsu.com, kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com,
ebiederm@...ssion.com, davem@...emloft.net, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
linux-mm@...ck.org, kirill@...temov.name
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 6/7] tcp buffer limitation: per-cgroup limit
On Sun, Sep 18, 2011 at 5:56 PM, Glauber Costa <glommer@...allels.com> wrote:
> +static inline bool mem_cgroup_is_root(struct mem_cgroup *mem)
> +{
> + return (mem == root_mem_cgroup);
> +}
> +
Why are you adding a copy of mem_cgroup_is_root(). I see one already
in v3.0. Was it deleted in a previous patch?
> +static int tcp_write_maxmem(struct cgroup *cgrp, struct cftype *cft, u64 val)
> +{
> + struct mem_cgroup *sg = mem_cgroup_from_cont(cgrp);
> + struct mem_cgroup *parent = parent_mem_cgroup(sg);
> + struct net *net = current->nsproxy->net_ns;
> + int i;
> +
> + if (!cgroup_lock_live_group(cgrp))
> + return -ENODEV;
Why is cgroup_lock_live_cgroup() needed here? Does it protect updates
to sg->tcp_prot_mem[*]?
> +static u64 tcp_read_maxmem(struct cgroup *cgrp, struct cftype *cft)
> +{
> + struct mem_cgroup *sg = mem_cgroup_from_cont(cgrp);
> + u64 ret;
> +
> + if (!cgroup_lock_live_group(cgrp))
> + return -ENODEV;
Why is cgroup_lock_live_cgroup() needed here? Does it protect updates
to sg->tcp_max_memory?
--
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