On 01/21/2013 08:07 PM, Michal Hocko wrote: >> > And the reason why kmemcg holds the set_limit mutex >> > is just to protect from itself, then there is no *need* to hold any >> > extra lock (and we'll never be able to stop holding the creation lock, >> > whatever it is). So my main point here is not memcg_mutex vs >> > set_limit_mutex, but rather, memcg_mutex is needed anyway, and once it >> > is taken, the set_limit_mutex *can* be held, but doesn't need to. > So you can update kmem specific usage of set_limit_mutex. Meaning ? -- 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>