On Fri, 19 Mar 2010 08:10:39 +0530 Balbir Singh <balbir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > * KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> [2010-03-19 10:23:32]: > > > On Thu, 18 Mar 2010 21:58:55 +0530 > > Balbir Singh <balbir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > * KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> [2010-03-18 13:35:27]: > > > > > > Then, no probelm. It's ok to add mem_cgroup_udpate_stat() indpendent from > > > > mem_cgroup_update_file_mapped(). The look may be messy but it's not your > > > > fault. But please write "why add new function" to patch description. > > > > > > > > I'm sorry for wasting your time. > > > > > > Do we need to go down this route? We could check the stat and do the > > > correct thing. In case of FILE_MAPPED, always grab page_cgroup_lock > > > and for others potentially look at trylock. It is OK for different > > > stats to be protected via different locks. > > > > > > > I _don't_ want to see a mixture of spinlock and trylock in a function. > > > > A well documented well written function can help. The other thing is to > of-course solve this correctly by introducing different locking around > the statistics. Are you suggesting the later? > No. As I wrote. - don't modify codes around FILE_MAPPED in this series. - add a new functions for new statistics Then, - think about clean up later, after we confirm all things work as expected. Thanks, -Kame -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxx For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>