On Sat, 05 Jul 2008 11:11:10 +0530
Balbir Singh <balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:

quoted text
> KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote:
> > My swapcache accounting under memcg patch failed to catch tmpfs(shmem)'s one.
> > Can I test this under -mm tree ?
> > (If -mm is busy, I'm not in hurry.)
> > This patch works well in my box.
> > =
> > SwapCache handling fix.
> > 
> > shmem's swapcache behavior is a little different from anonymous's one and
> > memcg failed to handle it. This patch tries to fix it.
> > 
> > After this:
> > 
> > Any page marked as SwapCache is not uncharged. (delelte_from_swap_cache()
> > delete the SwapCache flag.)
> > 
> > To check a shmem-page-cache is alive or not we use
> >  page->mapping && !PageAnon(page) instead of
> >  pc->flags & PAGE_CGROUP_FLAG_CACHE.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>
> 
> Though I am not opposed to this, I do sit up and think if keeping the reference
> count around could avoid this complexity and from my point, the maintenance
> overhead of this logic/code (I fear there might be more special cases :( )

yes, to me. but we have to fix..

But I don't like old code's refcnt handling which does
   - increment
     - does this increment was really neccesary ?
       No? ok, decrement it again.

This was much more complex to me than current code.

And old ones will needs the check at treating swap-cache. (it couldn't but if we want)

quoted text
> 
> The trade-off is complexity versus the overhead of reference counting.
> 
refcnt was also very complex ;)

Thanks,
-Kame

quoted text
> -- 
> 	Warm Regards,
> 	Balbir Singh
> 	Linux Technology Center
> 	IBM, ISTL
> 

--
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/