----- Original Message -----
>KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote:
>> Add an interface to check usage is below "val"
>>
>> Signed-off-by: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>
>> include/linux/res_counter.h | 13 +++++++++++++
>> 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+)
>>
>> Index: mmtom-stamp-2008-07-15-15-39/include/linux/res_counter.h
>> ===================================================================
>> --- mmtom-stamp-2008-07-15-15-39.orig/include/linux/res_counter.h
>> +++ mmtom-stamp-2008-07-15-15-39/include/linux/res_counter.h
>> @@ -191,4 +191,17 @@ static inline int res_counter_set_limit(
>> return ret;
>> }
>>
>> +static inline int res_counter_check_under_val(struct res_counter *cnt,
>> + unsigned long long val)
>> +{
>> + unsigned long flags;
>> + int ret = 0;
>> +
>> + spin_lock_irqsave(&cnt->flags, flags);
>
>Is this spilock protection *really* required? As far as I see
>from its usage it is racy itself wrt to res_counter update, so
>this locking looks superfluous.
>
I get your point. Logically this lock is unnecessary.
(And seems this patch itself is buggy..(maybe refresh miss))
BTW, I'm sorry if I misunderstand. unsigned long long (on x86-32)
can be compared safely ?
Thanks,
-Kame
>> + if (cnt->usage < val)
>> + ret = 1;
>> + spin_unlock_irqrestore(&cnt->flags, flags);
>> + return ret;
>> +}
>> +
>> #endif
>>
>>
>
_______________________________________________
Containers mailing list
Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
