On Wed, 6 Oct 2010 09:15:34 +0900 Minchan Kim <minchan.kim@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > First of all, we could add your patch as it is and I don't expect any > regression report about interrupt latency. > That's because many embedded guys doesn't use mmotm and have a > tendency to not report regression of VM. > Even they don't use memcg. Hmm... > > I pass the decision to MAINTAINER Kame and Balbir. > Thanks for the detail explanation. > Hmm. IRQ delay is a concern. So, my option is this. How do you think ? 1. remove local_irq_save()/restore() in lock/unlock_page_cgroup(). yes, I don't like it. 2. At moving charge, do this: a) lock_page()/ or trylock_page() b) wait_on_page_writeback() c) do move_account under lock_page_cgroup(). c) unlock_page() Then, Writeback updates will never come from IRQ context while lock/unlock_page_cgroup() is held by move_account(). There will be no race. Do I miss something ? 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>