[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.21.2002151728250.244463@chino.kir.corp.google.com>
Date: Sat, 15 Feb 2020 17:29:06 -0800 (PST)
From: David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
To: Mina Almasry <almasrymina@...gle.com>
cc: mike.kravetz@...cle.com, shuah@...nel.org, shakeelb@...gle.com,
gthelen@...gle.com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org, cgroups@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v12 5/9] hugetlb_cgroup: add accounting for shared
mappings
On Tue, 11 Feb 2020, Mina Almasry wrote:
> For shared mappings, the pointer to the hugetlb_cgroup to uncharge lives
> in the resv_map entries, in file_region->reservation_counter.
>
> After a call to region_chg, we charge the approprate hugetlb_cgroup, and if
> successful, we pass on the hugetlb_cgroup info to a follow up region_add call.
> When a file_region entry is added to the resv_map via region_add, we put the
> pointer to that cgroup in file_region->reservation_counter. If charging doesn't
> succeed, we report the error to the caller, so that the kernel fails the
> reservation.
>
> On region_del, which is when the hugetlb memory is unreserved, we also uncharge
> the file_region->reservation_counter.
>
> Signed-off-by: Mina Almasry <almasrymina@...gle.com>
>
Does this develop a dependency on hugetlb_cgroup.h in hugetlb.h? Or maybe
we only need a forward declaration of struct file_region there?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists