From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail138.messagelabs.com (mail138.messagelabs.com [216.82.249.35]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1AE206B01E3 for ; Tue, 13 Apr 2010 11:08:58 -0400 (EDT) Received: from d28relay01.in.ibm.com (d28relay01.in.ibm.com [9.184.220.58]) by e28smtp03.in.ibm.com (8.14.3/8.13.1) with ESMTP id o3DF8lla024516 for ; Tue, 13 Apr 2010 20:38:47 +0530 Received: from d28av04.in.ibm.com (d28av04.in.ibm.com [9.184.220.66]) by d28relay01.in.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id o3DF8lFq1974298 for ; Tue, 13 Apr 2010 20:38:47 +0530 Received: from d28av04.in.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d28av04.in.ibm.com (8.14.3/8.13.1/NCO v10.0 AVout) with ESMTP id o3DF8kqX026800 for ; Wed, 14 Apr 2010 01:08:46 +1000 Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2010 20:38:43 +0530 From: Balbir Singh Subject: Re: [PATCH] memcg: update documentation v5 Message-ID: <20100413150843.GI3994@balbir.in.ibm.com> Reply-To: balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com References: <20100408145800.ca90ad81.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> <20100409134553.58096f80.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> <20100409100430.7409c7c4.randy.dunlap@oracle.com> <20100413134553.7e2c4d3d.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> <20100413135718.GA4493@redhat.com> <20100413140302.GB4493@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20100413140302.GB4493@redhat.com> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org To: Vivek Goyal Cc: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki , Randy Dunlap , "linux-mm@kvack.org" , "akpm@linux-foundation.org" , "nishimura@mxp.nes.nec.co.jp" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" List-ID: * Vivek Goyal [2010-04-13 10:03:02]: > On Tue, Apr 13, 2010 at 09:57:18AM -0400, Vivek Goyal wrote: > > On Tue, Apr 13, 2010 at 01:45:53PM +0900, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote: > > > > Typed wrong email id last time and mail bounced. So here is another > attempt. > > > [..] > > > -2. Locking > > > +2.6 Locking > > > > > > -The memory controller uses the following hierarchy > > > + lock_page_cgroup()/unlock_page_cgroup() should not be called under > > > + mapping->tree_lock. > > > > > > > Because I never understood very well, I will ask. Why lock_page_cgroup() > > should not be called under mapping->tree_lock? > > The closest reference I can find to a conversation regarding this is http://linux.derkeiler.com/Mailing-Lists/Kernel/2009-05/msg05158.html -- Three Cheers, Balbir -- 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