From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mt1.gw.fujitsu.co.jp ([10.0.50.74]) by fgwmail7.fujitsu.co.jp (Fujitsu Gateway) with ESMTP id mB27JMfL017787 for (envelope-from kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com); Tue, 2 Dec 2008 16:19:22 +0900 Received: from smail (m4 [127.0.0.1]) by outgoing.m4.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id B3CB945DE54 for ; Tue, 2 Dec 2008 16:19:21 +0900 (JST) Received: from s4.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (s4.gw.fujitsu.co.jp [10.0.50.94]) by m4.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8593A45DD77 for ; Tue, 2 Dec 2008 16:19:21 +0900 (JST) Received: from s4.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by s4.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5660C1DB8042 for ; Tue, 2 Dec 2008 16:19:21 +0900 (JST) Received: from m107.s.css.fujitsu.com (m107.s.css.fujitsu.com [10.249.87.107]) by s4.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id EC8331DB8041 for ; Tue, 2 Dec 2008 16:19:20 +0900 (JST) From: KOSAKI Motohiro Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] memcg: mem_cgroup->prev_priority protected by lock. In-Reply-To: <20081202161545.abb884e8.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> References: <20081202160949.1CFE.KOSAKI.MOTOHIRO@jp.fujitsu.com> <20081202161545.abb884e8.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> Message-Id: <20081202161837.1D04.KOSAKI.MOTOHIRO@jp.fujitsu.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2008 16:19:20 +0900 (JST) Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki Cc: kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com, LKML , linux-mm , Balbir Singh , Andrew Morton List-ID: > On Tue, 2 Dec 2008 16:11:07 +0900 (JST) > KOSAKI Motohiro wrote: > > > > > Currently, mem_cgroup doesn't have own lock and almost its member doesn't need. > > (e.g. info is protected by zone lock, stat is per cpu variable) > > > > However, there is one explict exception. mem_cgroup->prev_priorit need lock, > > but doesn't protect. > > Luckly, this is NOT bug because prev_priority isn't used for current reclaim code. > > > > However, we plan to use prev_priority future again. > > Therefore, fixing is better. > > > > > > In addision, we plan to reuse this lock for another member. > > Then "misc_lock" name is better than "prev_priority_lock". > > > please use better name...reclaim_param_lock or some ? good idea :) Will fix. -- 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