On Sun, Feb 21, 2010 at 01:28:35PM -0800, David Rientjes wrote:
[snip]
+static struct mem_cgroup *get_mem_cgroup_from_page(struct page *page)
+{
+ struct page_cgroup *pc;
+ struct mem_cgroup *mem = NULL;
+
+ pc = lookup_page_cgroup(page);
+ if (unlikely(!pc))
+
On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 09:44:42PM +0530, Balbir Singh wrote:
[snip]
+void mem_cgroup_charge_dirty(struct page *page,
+ enum zone_stat_item idx, int charge)
+{
+ struct mem_cgroup *mem;
+ struct mem_cgroup_stat_cpu *cpustat;
+ unsigned long flags;
+ int cpu;
Hi
On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 8:58 PM, Andrea Righi ari...@develer.com wrote:
On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 01:07:32PM -0500, Vivek Goyal wrote:
+unsigned long mem_cgroup_dirty_bytes(void)
+{
+ struct mem_cgroup *memcg;
+ unsigned long dirty_bytes;
+
+ if
On Fri, 26 Feb 2010 00:36:15 +0900
Minchan Kim minchan@gmail.com wrote:
Hi
On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 8:58 PM, Andrea Righi ari...@develer.com wrote:
On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 01:07:32PM -0500, Vivek Goyal wrote:
+unsigned long mem_cgroup_dirty_bytes(void)
+{
+ struct
Hi, Kame.
On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 9:23 AM, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
kamezawa.hir...@jp.fujitsu.com wrote:
On Fri, 26 Feb 2010 00:36:15 +0900
Minchan Kim minchan@gmail.com wrote:
Hi
On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 8:58 PM, Andrea Righi ari...@develer.com wrote:
On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 01:07:32PM
Hi,
On Fri, 26 Feb 2010 13:50:04 +0900
Minchan Kim minchan@gmail.com wrote:
Hm ? I don't read the whole thread but can_attach() is called under
cgroup_mutex(). So, it doesn't need to use RCU.
Vivek mentioned memcg is protected by RCU if I understand his intention right.
So I
On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 2:01 PM, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
kamezawa.hir...@jp.fujitsu.com wrote:
Hi,
On Fri, 26 Feb 2010 13:50:04 +0900
Minchan Kim minchan@gmail.com wrote:
Hm ? I don't read the whole thread but can_attach() is called under
cgroup_mutex(). So, it doesn't need to use RCU.
On Fri, 26 Feb 2010 14:53:39 +0900
Minchan Kim minchan@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 2:01 PM, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
kamezawa.hir...@jp.fujitsu.com wrote:
Hi,
On Fri, 26 Feb 2010 13:50:04 +0900
Minchan Kim minchan@gmail.com wrote:
Hm ? I don't read the whole thread
On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 3:15 PM, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
kamezawa.hir...@jp.fujitsu.com wrote:
On Fri, 26 Feb 2010 14:53:39 +0900
Minchan Kim minchan@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 2:01 PM, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
kamezawa.hir...@jp.fujitsu.com wrote:
Hi,
On Fri, 26 Feb 2010 13:50:04
On Tue, 23 Feb 2010 10:28:53 +0100
Andrea Righi ari...@develer.com wrote:
On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 09:44:42PM +0530, Balbir Singh wrote:
[snip]
+void mem_cgroup_charge_dirty(struct page *page,
+ enum zone_stat_item idx, int charge)
+{
+ struct mem_cgroup *mem;
+
On Sun, Feb 21, 2010 at 04:18:44PM +0100, Andrea Righi wrote:
Infrastructure to account dirty pages per cgroup + add memory.dirty_bytes
limit
in cgroupfs.
Signed-off-by: Andrea Righi ari...@develer.com
---
include/linux/memcontrol.h | 31 ++
mm/memcontrol.c| 218
* Andrea Righi ari...@develer.com [2010-02-21 16:18:44]:
Infrastructure to account dirty pages per cgroup + add memory.dirty_bytes
limit
in cgroupfs.
Signed-off-by: Andrea Righi ari...@develer.com
---
include/linux/memcontrol.h | 31 ++
mm/memcontrol.c| 218
* Vivek Goyal vgo...@redhat.com [2010-02-22 10:58:40]:
We seem to be doing same operation as existing mem_cgroup_update_file_mapped
function is doing to udpate some stats. Can we just reuse that? We
probably can create one core function which take index of stat to update
and
On Sun, Feb 21, 2010 at 11:17:01PM +0100, Andrea Righi wrote:
On Sun, Feb 21, 2010 at 01:28:35PM -0800, David Rientjes wrote:
[snip]
+static struct mem_cgroup *get_mem_cgroup_from_page(struct page *page)
+{
+ struct page_cgroup *pc;
+ struct mem_cgroup *mem = NULL;
+
+ pc =
On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 09:22:42AM +0900, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote:
[..]
+static int mem_cgroup_dirty_bytes_write(struct cgroup *cgrp, struct cftype
*cft,
+ u64 val)
+{
+ struct mem_cgroup *memcg = mem_cgroup_from_cont(cgrp);
+ struct mem_cgroup
On Mon, 22 Feb 2010, Andrea Righi wrote:
Hmm...do we need spinlock ? You use unsigned long, then, read-write
is always atomic if not read-modify-write.
I think I simply copypaste the memcg-swappiness case. But I agree,
read-write should be atomic.
We don't need memcg-reclaim_param_lock
On Sun, 21 Feb 2010, Andrea Righi wrote:
diff --git a/include/linux/memcontrol.h b/include/linux/memcontrol.h
index 1f9b119..ba3fe0d 100644
--- a/include/linux/memcontrol.h
+++ b/include/linux/memcontrol.h
@@ -25,6 +25,16 @@ struct page_cgroup;
struct page;
struct mm_struct;
+/*
On Sun, 21 Feb 2010 16:18:44 +0100
Andrea Righi ari...@develer.com wrote:
Infrastructure to account dirty pages per cgroup + add memory.dirty_bytes
limit
in cgroupfs.
Signed-off-by: Andrea Righi ari...@develer.com
Looks clean in general. But some confliction with memcg in mmotm.
And
18 matches
Mail list logo
