From: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/6] add res_counter_uncharge_until() Date: Mon, 14 May 2012 10:10:39 +0900 Message-ID: <4FB05B8F.8020408@jp.fujitsu.com> References: <4FACDED0.3020400@jp.fujitsu.com> <4FACE01A.4040405@jp.fujitsu.com> <20120511141945.c487e94c.akpm@linux-foundation.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20120511141945.c487e94c.akpm-de/tnXTf+JLsfHDXvbKv3WD2FQJk+8+b@public.gmane.org> Sender: cgroups-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org List-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: Andrew Morton Cc: "linux-mm-Bw31MaZKKs3YtjvyW6yDsg@public.gmane.org" , "cgroups-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org" , Michal Hocko , Johannes Weiner , Frederic Weisbecker , Han Ying , Glauber Costa , Tejun Heo , "Aneesh Kumar K.V" , Hiroyuki Kamezawa , Linux Kernel (2012/05/12 6:19), Andrew Morton wrote: > On Fri, 11 May 2012 18:47:06 +0900 > KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote: > >> From: Frederic Weisbecker >> >> At killing res_counter which is a child of other counter, >> we need to do >> res_counter_uncharge(child, xxx) >> res_counter_charge(parent, xxx) >> >> This is not atomic and wasting cpu. This patch adds >> res_counter_uncharge_until(). This function's uncharge propagates >> to ancestors until specified res_counter. >> >> res_counter_uncharge_until(child, parent, xxx) >> >> Now, ops is atomic and efficient. >> >> Changelog since v2 >> - removed unnecessary lines. >> - Fixed 'From' , this patch comes from his series. Please signed-off-by if good. >> >> Signed-off-by: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki > > Frederic's Signed-off-by: is unavaliable? > I didn't add his Signed-off because I modified his orignal patch a little... I dropped res_counter_charge_until() because it's not used in this series, I have no justification for adding it. The idea of res_counter_uncharge_until() is from his patch. Thanks, -Kame