From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Glauber Costa Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 4/6] memcg: replace cgroup_lock with memcg specific memcg_lock Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2013 20:12:17 +0400 Message-ID: <50FD68E1.2070303@parallels.com> References: <1358766813-15095-1-git-send-email-glommer@parallels.com> <1358766813-15095-5-git-send-email-glommer@parallels.com> <20130121144919.GO7798@dhcp22.suse.cz> <50FD5AC0.9020406@parallels.com> <20130121152032.GP7798@dhcp22.suse.cz> <50FD6003.8060703@parallels.com> <20130121160731.GQ7798@dhcp22.suse.cz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20130121160731.GQ7798-2MMpYkNvuYDjFM9bn6wA6Q@public.gmane.org> Sender: cgroups-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org List-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: Michal Hocko Cc: cgroups-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, linux-mm-Bw31MaZKKs3YtjvyW6yDsg@public.gmane.org, Tejun Heo , Johannes Weiner , kamezawa.hiroyu-+CUm20s59erQFUHtdCDX3A@public.gmane.org On 01/21/2013 08:07 PM, Michal Hocko wrote: >> > And the reason why kmemcg holds the set_limit mutex >> > is just to protect from itself, then there is no *need* to hold any >> > extra lock (and we'll never be able to stop holding the creation lock, >> > whatever it is). So my main point here is not memcg_mutex vs >> > set_limit_mutex, but rather, memcg_mutex is needed anyway, and once it >> > is taken, the set_limit_mutex *can* be held, but doesn't need to. > So you can update kmem specific usage of set_limit_mutex. Meaning ? From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from psmtp.com (na3sys010amx187.postini.com [74.125.245.187]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 255106B0004 for ; Mon, 21 Jan 2013 11:12:08 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <50FD68E1.2070303@parallels.com> Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2013 20:12:17 +0400 From: Glauber Costa MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 4/6] memcg: replace cgroup_lock with memcg specific memcg_lock References: <1358766813-15095-1-git-send-email-glommer@parallels.com> <1358766813-15095-5-git-send-email-glommer@parallels.com> <20130121144919.GO7798@dhcp22.suse.cz> <50FD5AC0.9020406@parallels.com> <20130121152032.GP7798@dhcp22.suse.cz> <50FD6003.8060703@parallels.com> <20130121160731.GQ7798@dhcp22.suse.cz> In-Reply-To: <20130121160731.GQ7798@dhcp22.suse.cz> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Michal Hocko Cc: cgroups@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, Tejun Heo , Johannes Weiner , kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com On 01/21/2013 08:07 PM, Michal Hocko wrote: >> > And the reason why kmemcg holds the set_limit mutex >> > is just to protect from itself, then there is no *need* to hold any >> > extra lock (and we'll never be able to stop holding the creation lock, >> > whatever it is). So my main point here is not memcg_mutex vs >> > set_limit_mutex, but rather, memcg_mutex is needed anyway, and once it >> > is taken, the set_limit_mutex *can* be held, but doesn't need to. > So you can update kmem specific usage of set_limit_mutex. Meaning ? -- 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