[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20120720141625.GA1426@cmpxchg.org>
Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2012 16:16:25 +0200
From: Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>
To: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>
Cc: Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Mel Gorman <mel@....ul.ie>,
KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>,
Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org>,
"Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>,
"andi.kleen" <andi.kleen@...el.com>, linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Cgroup: Fix memory accounting scalability in
shrink_page_list
On Fri, Jul 20, 2012 at 03:53:29PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Thu 19-07-12 16:34:26, Tim Chen wrote:
> [...]
> > diff --git a/mm/vmscan.c b/mm/vmscan.c
> > index 33dc256..aac5672 100644
> > --- a/mm/vmscan.c
> > +++ b/mm/vmscan.c
> > @@ -779,6 +779,7 @@ static unsigned long shrink_page_list(struct list_head *page_list,
> >
> > cond_resched();
> >
> > + mem_cgroup_uncharge_start();
> > while (!list_empty(page_list)) {
> > enum page_references references;
> > struct address_space *mapping;
>
> Is this safe? We have a scheduling point few lines below. What prevents
> from task move while we are in the middle of the batch?
The batch is accounted in task_struct, so moving a batching task to
another CPU shouldn't be a problem.
--
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