[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <87obrqsgno.fsf@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2012 10:18:43 +0530
From: "Aneesh Kumar K.V" <aneesh.kumar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Glauber Costa <glommer@...allels.com>,
KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>
Cc: linux-mm@...ck.org, mgorman@...e.de, dhillf@...il.com,
aarcange@...hat.com, mhocko@...e.cz, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
hannes@...xchg.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
cgroups@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH -V4 04/10] memcg: Add HugeTLB extension
Glauber Costa <glommer@...allels.com> writes:
> On 03/19/2012 11:00 AM, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote:
>> (2012/03/19 15:52), Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>>> +#ifdef CONFIG_MEM_RES_CTLR_HUGETLB
>>>>> +static bool mem_cgroup_have_hugetlb_usage(struct mem_cgroup *memcg)
>>>>> +{
>>>>> + int idx;
>>>>> + for (idx = 0; idx< hugetlb_max_hstate; idx++) {
>>>>> + if (memcg->hugepage[idx].usage> 0)
>>>>> + return 1;
>>>>> + }
>>>>> + return 0;
>>>>> +}
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Please use res_counter_read_u64() rather than reading the value directly.
>>>>
>>>
>>> The open-coded variant is mostly derived from mem_cgroup_force_empty. I
>>> have updated the patch to use res_counter_read_u64.
>>>
>>
>> Ah, ok. it's(maybe) my bad. I'll schedule a fix.
>>
> Kame,
>
> I actually have it ready here. I can submit it if you want.
>
> This one has bitten me as well when I was trying to experiment with the
> res_counter performance...
Do we really need memcg.res.usage to be accurate in that while loop ? If
we miss a zero update because we encountered a partial update; in the
next loop we will find it zero right ?
-aneesh
--
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