From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from m5.gw.fujitsu.co.jp ([10.0.50.75]) by fgwmail5.fujitsu.co.jp (Fujitsu Gateway) with ESMTP id mA46QOK4007513 for (envelope-from kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com); Tue, 4 Nov 2008 15:26:24 +0900 Received: from smail (m5 [127.0.0.1]) by outgoing.m5.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2B0352AC02A for ; Tue, 4 Nov 2008 15:26:24 +0900 (JST) Received: from s5.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (s5.gw.fujitsu.co.jp [10.0.50.95]) by m5.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 01B8A12C048 for ; Tue, 4 Nov 2008 15:26:24 +0900 (JST) Received: from s5.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by s5.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id DDCBB1DB803A for ; Tue, 4 Nov 2008 15:26:23 +0900 (JST) Received: from m105.s.css.fujitsu.com (m105.s.css.fujitsu.com [10.249.87.105]) by s5.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8602B1DB8042 for ; Tue, 4 Nov 2008 15:26:23 +0900 (JST) Date: Tue, 4 Nov 2008 15:25:51 +0900 From: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 1/5] memcg : force_empty to do move account Message-Id: <20081104152551.28851a7b.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> In-Reply-To: <6599ad830811032223r4c655c2dsc0c4b61c048039f9@mail.gmail.com> References: <20081031115057.6da3dafd.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> <20081031115241.1399d605.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> <6599ad830811032215j3ce5dcc1g6d0c3e9439a004d@mail.gmail.com> <20081104151748.4731f5a1.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> <6599ad830811032223r4c655c2dsc0c4b61c048039f9@mail.gmail.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: Paul Menage Cc: "linux-mm@kvack.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com" , "nishimura@mxp.nes.nec.co.jp" , hugh@veritas.com, taka@valinux.co.jp List-ID: On Mon, 3 Nov 2008 22:23:11 -0800 Paul Menage wrote: > On Mon, Nov 3, 2008 at 10:17 PM, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki > wrote: > >> > > >> > mem = memcg; > >> > - ret = mem_cgroup_try_charge(mm, gfp_mask, &mem); > >> > + ret = __mem_cgroup_try_charge(mm, gfp_mask, &mem, true); > >> > >> Isn't this the same as the definition of mem_cgroup_try_charge()? So > >> you could leave it as-is? > >> > > try_charge is called by other places....swapin. > > > > No, I mean here you can call mem_cgroup_try_charge(...) rather than > __mem_cgroup_try_charge(..., true). > you're right. will remove this change. Thanks, -Kame -- 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