From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail191.messagelabs.com (mail191.messagelabs.com [216.82.242.19]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 7367D6B003D for ; Tue, 10 Mar 2009 01:54:57 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mt1.gw.fujitsu.co.jp ([10.0.50.74]) by fgwmail5.fujitsu.co.jp (Fujitsu Gateway) with ESMTP id n2A5ssQq006030 for (envelope-from kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com); Tue, 10 Mar 2009 14:54:55 +0900 Received: from smail (m4 [127.0.0.1]) by outgoing.m4.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7387445DE50 for ; Tue, 10 Mar 2009 14:54:54 +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 4805D45DE51 for ; Tue, 10 Mar 2009 14:54:54 +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 2BAF31DB803A for ; Tue, 10 Mar 2009 14:54:54 +0900 (JST) Received: from ml14.s.css.fujitsu.com (ml14.s.css.fujitsu.com [10.249.87.104]) by s4.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id D3E4AE08007 for ; Tue, 10 Mar 2009 14:54:53 +0900 (JST) Date: Tue, 10 Mar 2009 14:53:34 +0900 From: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 1/4] memcg: add softlimit interface and utilitiy function. Message-Id: <20090310145334.0473c3fe.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> In-Reply-To: <20090309084844.GI24321@balbir.in.ibm.com> References: <20090309163745.5e3805ba.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> <20090309163907.a3cee183.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> <20090309074449.GH24321@balbir.in.ibm.com> <20090309165507.9f57ad41.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> <20090309084844.GI24321@balbir.in.ibm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org To: balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com Cc: "linux-mm@kvack.org" , "nishimura@mxp.nes.nec.co.jp" , "kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com" List-ID: On Mon, 9 Mar 2009 14:18:44 +0530 Balbir Singh wrote: > * KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki [2009-03-09 16:55:07]: > > > On Mon, 9 Mar 2009 13:14:49 +0530 > > Balbir Singh wrote: > > > > > * KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki [2009-03-09 16:39:07]: > > Hmm, them, moving mem->softlimit to res->softlimit is ok ? > > > > If no more "branch" to res_counter_charge/uncharge(), moving this to > > res_counter is ok to me. > > > > There is a branch, but the additional excessive checks are gone. > It should be possible to reduce the overhead to comparisons though. > I'm now rewriting to use res_counter but do you have any good reason to irq-off in res_counter ? It seems there are no callers in irq path. 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