Glauber Costa <glommer@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> On 03/19/2012 11:00 AM, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote:
>> (2012/03/19 15:52), Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>>> +#ifdef CONFIG_MEM_RES_CTLR_HUGETLB
>>>>> +static bool mem_cgroup_have_hugetlb_usage(struct mem_cgroup *memcg)
>>>>> +{
>>>>> + int idx;
>>>>> + for (idx = 0; idx< hugetlb_max_hstate; idx++) {
>>>>> + if (memcg->hugepage[idx].usage> 0)
>>>>> + return 1;
>>>>> + }
>>>>> + return 0;
>>>>> +}
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Please use res_counter_read_u64() rather than reading the value directly.
>>>>
>>>
>>> The open-coded variant is mostly derived from mem_cgroup_force_empty. I
>>> have updated the patch to use res_counter_read_u64.
>>>
>>
>> Ah, ok. it's(maybe) my bad. I'll schedule a fix.
>>
> Kame,
>
> I actually have it ready here. I can submit it if you want.
>
> This one has bitten me as well when I was trying to experiment with the
> res_counter performance...
Do we really need memcg.res.usage to be accurate in that while loop ? If
we miss a zero update because we encountered a partial update; in the
next loop we will find it zero right ?
-aneesh
--
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/ .
Fight unfair telecom internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>