On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 04:00:02PM -0500, Johannes Weiner wrote: > @@ -683,17 +683,17 @@ int __set_page_dirty_buffers(struct page *page) > } while (bh != head); > } > /* > - * Use mem_group_begin_page_stat() to keep PageDirty synchronized with > - * per-memcg dirty page counters. > + * Lock out page->mem_cgroup migration to keep PageDirty > + * synchronized with per-memcg dirty page counters. > */ > - memcg = mem_cgroup_begin_page_stat(page); > + memcg = lock_page_memcg(page); > newly_dirty = !TestSetPageDirty(page); > spin_unlock(&mapping->private_lock); > > if (newly_dirty) > __set_page_dirty(page, mapping, memcg, 1); Do we really want to pass memcg to __set_page_dirty and then to account_page_dirtied, increasing stack/regs usage even in case memory cgroup is disabled? May be, it'd be better to make mem_cgroup_update_page_stat take a page instead of a memcg? Thanks, Vladimir > > - mem_cgroup_end_page_stat(memcg); > + unlock_page_memcg(memcg); > > if (newly_dirty) > __mark_inode_dirty(mapping->host, I_DIRTY_PAGES); -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>