From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Thu, 07 Aug 2008 20:00:37 +0900 From: KOSAKI Motohiro Subject: Re: Race condition between putback_lru_page and mem_cgroup_move_list In-Reply-To: <1218041585.6173.45.camel@lts-notebook> References: <489741F8.2080104@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <1218041585.6173.45.camel@lts-notebook> Message-Id: <20080807185203.A8C2.KOSAKI.MOTOHIRO@jp.fujitsu.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Lee Schermerhorn Cc: kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com, balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com, MinChan Kim , KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki , linux-mm , Rik van Riel , LKML List-ID: Hi > If you mean the "active/inactive list transition" in > shrink_[in]active_list(), these are already batched under zone lru_lock > with batch size determined by the 'release pages' pvec. So, I think > we're OK here. No. AFAIK shrink_inactive_list batched zone->lru_lock, but it doesn't batched mz->lru_lock. then, spin_lock_irqsave is freqently called. -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org