[Devel] Re: [PATCH 3/4] swapcgroup: implement charge/uncharge
KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
kamezawa.hiroyu at jp.fujitsu.com
Tue May 27 06:42:03 PDT 2008
On Mon, 26 May 2008 09:57:06 +0900
KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu at jp.fujitsu.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 23 May 2008 20:52:29 +0900
> Daisuke Nishimura <nishimura at mxp.nes.nec.co.jp> wrote:
>
> > On 2008/05/22 16:37 +0900, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote:
> > > On Thu, 22 May 2008 15:20:05 +0900
> > > Daisuke Nishimura <nishimura at mxp.nes.nec.co.jp> wrote:
> > >
> > >> +#ifdef CONFIG_CGROUP_SWAP_RES_CTLR
> > >> +int swap_cgroup_charge(struct page *page,
> > >> + struct swap_info_struct *si,
> > >> + unsigned long offset)
> > >> +{
> > >> + int ret;
> > >> + struct page_cgroup *pc;
> > >> + struct mem_cgroup *mem;
> > >> +
> > >> + lock_page_cgroup(page);
> > >> + pc = page_get_page_cgroup(page);
> > >> + if (unlikely(!pc))
> > >> + mem = &init_mem_cgroup;
> > >> + else
> > >> + mem = pc->mem_cgroup;
> > >> + unlock_page_cgroup(page);
> > >
> > > If !pc, the page is used before memory controller is available. But is it
> > > good to be charged to init_mem_cgroup() ?
> > I'm sorry, but I can't understand this situation.
> > memory controller is initialized at kernel initialization,
> > so aren't processes created after it is initialized?
> >
> I think add_to_page_cache() may be called before late_init..I'll check again.
> (Because I saw some panics related to it, but I noticed this is _swap_ controller
> ...)
_Now_, force_empty() will create a page which is used but
page->page_cgroup is NULL page. I'm now writing a workaround (1/4 in my newest set)
but it's better to check page->page_cgroup is NULL or not.
Thanks,
-Kame
_______________________________________________
Containers mailing list
Containers at lists.linux-foundation.org
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
More information about the Devel
mailing list