From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753371Ab0DTEaS (ORCPT ); Tue, 20 Apr 2010 00:30:18 -0400 Received: from fgwmail7.fujitsu.co.jp ([192.51.44.37]:34291 "EHLO fgwmail7.fujitsu.co.jp" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752068Ab0DTEaP (ORCPT ); Tue, 20 Apr 2010 00:30:15 -0400 X-SecurityPolicyCheck-FJ: OK by FujitsuOutboundMailChecker v1.3.1 Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2010 13:26:16 +0900 From: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki To: Daisuke Nishimura Cc: LKML , linux-mm , Mel Gorman , Rik van Riel , Minchan Kim , Balbir Singh , KOSAKI Motohiro , Christoph Lameter , Andrea Arcangeli , Andrew Morton Subject: Re: [RFC][BUGFIX][PATCH 2/2] memcg: fix file mapped underflow at migration (v3) Message-Id: <20100420132616.ed27f757.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> In-Reply-To: <20100420132050.3477a717.nishimura@mxp.nes.nec.co.jp> References: <20100413134207.f12cdc9c.nishimura@mxp.nes.nec.co.jp> <20100415120516.3891ce46.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> <20100415120652.c577846f.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> <20100416193143.5807d114.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> <20100419124225.91f3110b.nishimura@mxp.nes.nec.co.jp> <20100419131817.f263d93c.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> <20100419170701.3864992e.nishimura@mxp.nes.nec.co.jp> <20100419172629.dbf65e18.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> <20100420132050.3477a717.nishimura@mxp.nes.nec.co.jp> Organization: FUJITSU Co. LTD. X-Mailer: Sylpheed 3.0.2 (GTK+ 2.10.14; i686-pc-mingw32) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, 20 Apr 2010 13:20:50 +0900 Daisuke Nishimura wrote: > > > I have one concern for now. Reading the patch, the flag have influence on > > > only anonymous pages, so we'd better to note it and I feel it strange to > > > set(and clear) the flag of "old page" always(iow, even when !PageAnon) > > > in prepare_migration. > > > > > > > Hmm...Checking "Only Anon" is simpler ? > I just thought it was inconsistent that we always set/clear the bit about "old page", > while we set the bit about "new page" only in PageAnon case. > Ok, look into again. > > It will have no meanings for migrating > > file caches, but it may have some meanings for easy debugging. > > I think "mark it always but it's used only for anonymous page" is reasonable > > (if it causes no bug.) > > > Anyway, I don't have any strong objection. > It's all right for me as long as it is well documented or commented. > Maybe I can post v4, today. Thanks, -Kame