On Wed, 4 Jun 2008 01:59:31 -0700
"Paul Menage" <menage@google.com> wrote:

quoted text
> On Tue, Jun 3, 2008 at 10:01 PM, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
> <kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> wrote:
> >        int ret;
> >        char *buf, *end;
> > @@ -133,13 +145,101 @@ ssize_t res_counter_write(struct res_cou
> >                if (*end != '__PLACEHOLDER__0_')
> >                        goto out_free;
> >        }
> > -       spin_lock_irqsave(&counter->lock, flags);
> > -       val = res_counter_member(counter, member);
> > -       *val = tmp;
> > -       spin_unlock_irqrestore(&counter->lock, flags);
> > -       ret = nbytes;
> > +       if (set_strategy) {
> > +               ret = set_strategy(res, tmp, member);
> > +               if (!ret)
> > +                       ret = nbytes;
> > +       } else {
> > +               spin_lock_irqsave(&counter->lock, flags);
> > +               val = res_counter_member(counter, member);
> > +               *val = tmp;
> > +               spin_unlock_irqrestore(&counter->lock, flags);
> > +               ret = nbytes;
> > +       }
> 
> I think that the hierarchy/reclaim handling that you currently have in
> the memory controller should be here; the memory controller should
> just be able to pass a reference to try_to_free_mem_cgroup_pages() and
> have everything else handled by res_counter.
> 
Sounds reasonable. I'll re-design the whole AMAP. I think I can do more.

Thanks,
-Kame

--
unsubscribe notice
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/