On Sat, Apr 28, 2012 at 2:08 AM, Glauber Costa <glommer@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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 I don't need "charge" part for my purpose and have no justification to add it. And task-limit cgroup has no justification, either. Thanks, -Kame -- 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