Re: [RFC] Is it correctly that the usage for spin_{lock|unlock}_irq in clear_page_dirty_for_io

On 4/4/2018 7:12 AM, Greg Thelen wrote: On Tue, Apr 3, 2018 at 5:03 AM Michal Hocko wrote: On Mon 02-04-18 19:50:50, Wang Long wrote: Hi, Johannes Weiner and Tejun Heo I use linux-4.4.y to test the new cgroup controller io and the current stable kernel linux-4.4.y has the follow logic i

Re: [RFC] Is it correctly that the usage for spin_{lock|unlock}_irq in clear_page_dirty_for_io

On Tue, Apr 3, 2018 at 5:03 AM Michal Hocko wrote: > On Mon 02-04-18 19:50:50, Wang Long wrote: > > > > Hi, Johannes Weiner and Tejun Heo > > > > I use linux-4.4.y to test the new cgroup controller io and the current > > stable kernel linux-4.4.y has the follow logic > > > > > > int clear_page_d

Re: [RFC] Is it correctly that the usage for spin_{lock|unlock}_irq in clear_page_dirty_for_io

On Mon 02-04-18 19:50:50, Wang Long wrote: > > Hi,  Johannes Weiner and Tejun Heo > > I use linux-4.4.y to test the new cgroup controller io and the current > stable kernel linux-4.4.y has the follow logic > > > int clear_page_dirty_for_io(struct page *page){ > ... > ... >     memcg

[RFC] Is it correctly that the usage for spin_{lock|unlock}_irq in clear_page_dirty_for_io

Hi,  Johannes Weiner and Tejun Heo I use linux-4.4.y to test the new cgroup controller io and the current stable kernel linux-4.4.y has the follow logic int clear_page_dirty_for_io(struct page *page){ ... ...     memcg = mem_cgroup_begin_page_stat(page); --(a)