On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 14:18:33 +0530
Balbir Singh <balbir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > If I have to check under lock, please teach me.
> >
>
> If there are several processes running in parallel in the same cgroup, the end
> result might not be so nice, specially if the usage is close to the watermarks.
> I suspect that we should be OK for now, but might be worth keeping in mind.
>
I'll add text somewhere.
> > - counter->usage += val;
> > + if (newval > counter->hwmark) {
> > + counter->wmark_state = RES_WMARK_ABOVE_HIGH;
> > + smp_wmb();
>
> Do we need a barrier here? I suspect not, could you please document as to why a
> barrier is needed?
>
just chainging value with smp_wmb() and read value after smp_rmb().
By this, I think we can expect we can read snapshot value of wmark_state at
smp_rmb().
......I misunderstand that spin_unlock() has no barrier().
ok, I'll remove smp_wmb() here.
Thanks,
-Kame
_______________________________________________
Containers mailing list
Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
