Hello,
On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 01:09:23PM +0400, Glauber Costa wrote:
> > I can't say I'm a big fan of this approach. If there are enough
> > users, maybe but can't we just annotate the affected allocations
> > explicitly? Is this gonna have many more users?
>
> What exactly do you mean by anno
On 09/21/2012 11:59 PM, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 06:12:01PM +0400, Glauber Costa wrote:
>> +static void memcg_stop_kmem_account(void)
>> +{
>> +if (!current->mm)
>> +return;
>> +
>> +current->memcg_kmem_skip_account++;
>> +}
>> +
>> +static void mem
Hello,
On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 06:12:01PM +0400, Glauber Costa wrote:
> +static void memcg_stop_kmem_account(void)
> +{
> + if (!current->mm)
> + return;
> +
> + current->memcg_kmem_skip_account++;
> +}
> +
> +static void memcg_resume_kmem_account(void)
> +{
> + if (!curren
This patch creates a mechanism that skip memcg allocations during
certain pieces of our core code. It basically works in the same way
as preempt_disable()/preempt_enable(): By marking a region under
which all allocations will be accounted to the root memcg.
We need this to prevent races in early c
4 matches
Mail list logo
