Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 28 Nov 2008 19:51:17 +0900 | From | KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <> | Subject | Re: [RFC][PATCH -mmotm 1/2] take account of memsw |
| |
On Fri, 28 Nov 2008 18:07:37 +0900 Daisuke Nishimura <nishimura@mxp.nes.nec.co.jp> wrote:
> mem_cgroup_hierarchical_reclaim checks only mem->res now. > It should also check mem->memsw when do_swap_account. > > Signed-off-by: Daisuke Nishimura <nishimura@mxp.nes.nec.co.jp>
make sense
Acked-by: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>
> --- > mm/memcontrol.c | 17 +++++++++++++++-- > 1 files changed, 15 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/mm/memcontrol.c b/mm/memcontrol.c > index 20e1d90..e7806fc 100644 > --- a/mm/memcontrol.c > +++ b/mm/memcontrol.c > @@ -567,6 +567,19 @@ done: > return ret; > } > > +static int mem_cgroup_check_under_limit(struct mem_cgroup *mem) > +{ > + if (do_swap_account) { > + if (res_counter_check_under_limit(&mem->res) && > + res_counter_check_under_limit(&mem->memsw)) > + return 1; > + } else > + if (res_counter_check_under_limit(&mem->res)) > + return 1; > + > + return 0; > +} > + > /* > * Dance down the hierarchy if needed to reclaim memory. We remember the > * last child we reclaimed from, so that we don't end up penalizing > @@ -588,7 +601,7 @@ static int mem_cgroup_hierarchical_reclaim(struct mem_cgroup *root_mem, > * have left. > */ > ret = try_to_free_mem_cgroup_pages(root_mem, gfp_mask, noswap); > - if (res_counter_check_under_limit(&root_mem->res)) > + if (mem_cgroup_check_under_limit(root_mem)) > return 0; > > next_mem = mem_cgroup_get_first_node(root_mem); > @@ -602,7 +615,7 @@ static int mem_cgroup_hierarchical_reclaim(struct mem_cgroup *root_mem, > continue; > } > ret = try_to_free_mem_cgroup_pages(next_mem, gfp_mask, noswap); > - if (res_counter_check_under_limit(&root_mem->res)) > + if (mem_cgroup_check_under_limit(root_mem)) > return 0; > cgroup_lock(); > next_mem = mem_cgroup_get_next_node(next_mem, root_mem); >
| |