On Tue, 04 Dec 2007 14:10:42 +0300 Pavel Emelyanov <xemul@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote: > > This is seqlock version res_counter. > > Maybe this this will reduce # of spin_lock. > > > > Pavel-san, How about this ? > > AFAIS the readlock is used only in the check_under_limit(), > but I think, that even if we read usage and limit values > in this case non-atomically, this won't result in any > dramatic sequence at all. No? > Reader can detect *any* changes in res_counter member which happens while they access res_counter between seq_begin/seq_retry. Memory barrier and "sequence" of seq_lock guarantees this. So..there is no dramatical situation. (it's used for accesing xtime.) I'm sorry if I miss your point. Thanks, -Kame _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
