* KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> [2010-03-19 10:23:32]:

quoted text
> On Thu, 18 Mar 2010 21:58:55 +0530
> Balbir Singh <balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> 
> > * KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> [2010-03-18 13:35:27]:
> 
> > > Then, no probelm. It's ok to add mem_cgroup_udpate_stat() indpendent from
> > > mem_cgroup_update_file_mapped(). The look may be messy but it's not your
> > > fault. But please write "why add new function" to patch description.
> > > 
> > > I'm sorry for wasting your time.
> > 
> > Do we need to go down this route? We could check the stat and do the
> > correct thing. In case of FILE_MAPPED, always grab page_cgroup_lock
> > and for others potentially look at trylock. It is OK for different
> > stats to be protected via different locks.
> > 
> 
> I _don't_ want to see a mixture of spinlock and trylock in a function.
>

A well documented well written function can help. The other thing is to
of-course solve this correctly by introducing different locking around
the statistics. Are you suggesting the later?

-- 
	Three Cheers,
	Balbir
--
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/