Re: [PATCH 1/2] memcg: dirty pages accounting and limitinginfrastructure

[David Rientjes]

On Mon, 22 Feb 2010, Andrea Righi wrote:

> > Hmm...do we need spinlock ? You use "unsigned long", then, read-write
> > is always atomic if not read-modify-write.
> 
> I think I simply copy&paste the memcg->swappiness case. But I agree,
> read-write should be atomic.
> 

We don't need memcg->reclaim_param_lock in get_swappiness() or
mem_cgroup_get_reclaim_priority().
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/