On Tue, 30 Nov 2010 09:03:33 +0900 KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Oh! oh! I'd hate to do this in the fault path > > > Why ? We have per-cpu stock now and infulence of this is minimum. > We never hit this. > If problem, I'll use per-cpu value but it seems to be overkill. I'll remove all atomic ops. BTW, if you don't like waitqueue, what is alternative ? Keeping memory cgroup limit broken as returning -EBUSY is better ? 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/ . Fight unfair telecom policy in Canada: sign http://dissolvethecrtc.ca/ Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>