(2013/01/10 13:26), Sha Zhengju wrote:
But this method also has its pros and cons(e.g. need lock nesting). So
I doubt whether the following is able to deal with these issues all
together:
(CPU-A does "page stat accounting" and CPU-B does "move")
CPU-A CPU-B
move_lock_mem_cgroup()
memcg = pc->mem_cgroup
SetPageDirty(page)
move_unlock_mem_cgroup()
move_lock_mem_cgroup()
if (PageDirty) {
old_memcg->nr_dirty --;
new_memcg->nr_dirty ++;
}
pc->mem_cgroup = new_memcg
move_unlock_mem_cgroup()
memcg->nr_dirty ++
For CPU-A, we save pc->mem_cgroup in a temporary variable just before
SetPageDirty inside move_lock and then update stats if the page is set
PG_dirty successfully. But CPU-B may do "moving" in advance that
"old_memcg->nr_dirty --" will make old_memcg->nr_dirty incorrect but
soon CPU-A will do "memcg->nr_dirty ++" at the heels that amend the
stats.
However, there is a potential problem that old_memcg->nr_dirty may be
minus in a very short period but not a big issue IMHO.
IMHO, this will work. Please take care of that the recorded memcg will not
be invalid pointer when you update the nr_dirty later.
(Maybe RCU will protect it.)
_If_ this method can handle "nesting" problem clearer and make implementation
simpler, please go ahead. To be honest, I'm not sure how the code will be until
seeing the patch. Hmm, why you write SetPageDirty() here rather than
TestSetPageDirty()....
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/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>