Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 13 Apr 2010 20:38:43 +0530 | From | Balbir Singh <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] memcg: update documentation v5 |
| |
* Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@redhat.com> [2010-04-13 10:03:02]:
> On Tue, Apr 13, 2010 at 09:57:18AM -0400, Vivek Goyal wrote: > > On Tue, Apr 13, 2010 at 01:45:53PM +0900, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote: > > > > Typed wrong email id last time and mail bounced. So here is another > attempt. > > > [..] > > > -2. Locking > > > +2.6 Locking > > > > > > -The memory controller uses the following hierarchy > > > + lock_page_cgroup()/unlock_page_cgroup() should not be called under > > > + mapping->tree_lock. > > > > > > > Because I never understood very well, I will ask. Why lock_page_cgroup() > > should not be called under mapping->tree_lock? > >
The closest reference I can find to a conversation regarding this is
http://linux.derkeiler.com/Mailing-Lists/Kernel/2009-05/msg05158.html
-- Three Cheers, Balbir
| |