[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150327210612.GA23840@redhat.com>
Date: Fri, 27 Mar 2015 17:06:13 -0400
From: Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@...hat.com>
To: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Cc: axboe@...nel.dk, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, jack@...e.cz,
hch@...radead.org, hannes@...xchg.org,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, lizefan@...wei.com,
cgroups@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org, mhocko@...e.cz,
clm@...com, fengguang.wu@...el.com, david@...morbit.com,
gthelen@...gle.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 21/48] writeback: make backing_dev_info host
cgroup-specific bdi_writebacks
On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 12:54:32AM -0400, Tejun Heo wrote:
[..]
> +/**
> + * inode_attach_wb - associate an inode with its wb
> + * @inode: inode of interest
> + * @page: page being dirtied (may be NULL)
> + *
> + * If @inode doesn't have its wb, associate it with the wb matching the
> + * memcg of @page or, if @page is NULL, %current. May be called w/ or w/o
> + * @inode->i_lock.
> + */
> +static inline void inode_attach_wb(struct inode *inode, struct page *page)
> +{
> + if (!inode->i_wb)
> + __inode_attach_wb(inode, page);
> +}
Hi Tejun,
I was curious to know that why do we need this "struct page *page" when
trying to attach a inode to a bdi_writeback. Is using current's cgroup
always not sufficient?
Thanks
Vivek
--
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