[<prev] [next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4131e7d9-acad-4372-73b1-6fa1b0b251ef@linux.alibaba.com>
Date: Wed, 4 Mar 2020 15:19:46 +0800
From: Alex Shi <alex.shi@...ux.alibaba.com>
To: Hillf Danton <hdanton@...a.com>
Cc: cgroups@...r.kernel.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
mgorman@...hsingularity.net, tj@...nel.org, hughd@...gle.com,
khlebnikov@...dex-team.ru, daniel.m.jordan@...cle.com,
yang.shi@...ux.alibaba.com, willy@...radead.org,
hannes@...xchg.org, lkp@...el.com,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>,
Vladimir Davydov <vdavydov.dev@...il.com>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 02/20] mm/memcg: fold lock_page_lru into commit_charge
在 2020/3/4 上午11:13, Hillf Danton 写道:
>> * Nobody should be changing or seriously looking at
>> * page->mem_cgroup at this point:
>> @@ -2633,8 +2611,13 @@ static void commit_charge(struct page *page, struct mem_cgroup *memcg,
>> */
>> page->mem_cgroup = memcg;
>>
> Well it is likely to update memcg for page without lru_lock held even if
> more care is required, which is a change added in the current semantic and
> worth a line of words in log.
>
the lru_lock is guard for lru list, not for page->mem_cgroup, seem no need to highlight this point. Do we?
Thanks
Alex
Powered by blists - more mailing lists