On 04/27/2012 02:53 AM, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote: > From bb0168d5c85f62f36434956e4728a67d0cc41e55 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 > From: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki<kamezawa.hiroyu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2012 18:48:07 +0900 > Subject: [PATCH 3/9] memcg: add res_counter_uncharge_until() > > At killing res_counter which is a child of other counter, > we need to do > res_counter_uncharge(child, xxx) > res_counter_charge(parent, xxx) > > This is not atomic and wasting cpu. This patch adds > res_counter_uncharge_until(). This function's uncharge propagates > to ancestors until specified res_counter. > > res_counter_uncharge_until(child, parent, xxx) > > This ops is atomic and more efficient. > > Originaly-written-by: Frederic Weisbecker<fweisbec@xxxxxxxxx> > Signed-off-by: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki<kamezawa.hiroyu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> I have been carrying Frederic's patch itself in my code for a while now. Why not just use it? What are you doing differently to justify writing a patch yourself? It's a bit of credit giving as well -- 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>