[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <50601721.6040805@parallels.com>
Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2012 12:17:37 +0400
From: Glauber Costa <glommer@...allels.com>
To: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
CC: <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <cgroups@...r.kernel.org>,
<kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>, <devel@...nvz.org>,
<linux-mm@...ck.org>, Suleiman Souhlal <suleiman@...gle.com>,
Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>,
Pekka Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 06/16] memcg: infrastructure to match an allocation
to the right cache
On 09/22/2012 12:52 AM, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Missed some stuff.
>
> On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 06:12:00PM +0400, Glauber Costa wrote:
>> +static struct kmem_cache *memcg_create_kmem_cache(struct mem_cgroup *memcg,
>> + struct kmem_cache *cachep)
>> +{
> ...
>> + memcg->slabs[idx] = new_cachep;
> ...
>> +struct kmem_cache *__memcg_kmem_get_cache(struct kmem_cache *cachep,
>> + gfp_t gfp)
>> +{
> ...
>> + return memcg->slabs[idx];
>
> I think you need memory barriers for the above pair.
>
> Thanks.
>
Why is that?
We'll either see a value, or NULL. If we see NULL, we assume the cache
is not yet created. Not a big deal.
--
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