在 2019/12/17 上午10:16, Matthew Wilcox 写道: >>> You still didn't fix this function. Go back and look at my comment from >>> the last time you sent this patch set. >>> >> Sorry for the misunderstanding. I guess what your want is fold the patch 9th into this, is that right? >> Any comments for the 9th patch? > I didn't get as far as looking at the ninth patch because I saw this > one was wrong and stopped looking. This is not the first time *with > this patch set* that you've been told to *fix the patch*, not submit > something that's broken and fix it in a later patch. > > I'll look at patch 9 later. Thanks a lot for the nice cocaching and quick response! What the problem for me here is I didn't find a bug here. From the commit_charge's explanations and mem_cgroup_commit_charge comments, as well as call path when lrucare is ture, The lock is just to guard the task migration(which would be lead to move_account) So, It's just a clean up to give up locking when !PageLRU in patch 9. And even w/o patch 9, the page just locked root_mem_cgroup's lru_lock, same as old function does, while the page isn't on any LRU. Useless, but it's still safe. Do you mind to point out anything else I missed? Thanks a lot! Alex
