From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Thu, 29 May 2008 14:23:37 +0900 From: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki Subject: Re: [RFC 1/2] memcg: hierarchy support core (yet another one) Message-Id: <20080529142337.e9aa25b2.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> In-Reply-To: <20080529051104.2C4995A0E@siro.lan> References: <20080528165620.68f4d911.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> <20080529051104.2C4995A0E@siro.lan> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: YAMAMOTO Takashi Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org, containers@lists.osdl.org, balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com, xemul@openvz.org List-ID: On Thu, 29 May 2008 14:11:04 +0900 (JST) yamamoto@valinux.co.jp (YAMAMOTO Takashi) wrote: > > @@ -39,6 +39,18 @@ struct res_counter { > > */ > > unsigned long long failcnt; > > /* > > + * the amount of resource comes from parenet cgroup. Should be > > + * returned to the parent at destroying/resizing this res_counter. > > + */ > > + unsigned long long borrow; > > why do you need this in addition to the limit? > ie. aren't their values always equal except the root cgroup? > yes, except the root group. that's a reason....no,no To be honest, I thought of different concept of hierarchy when I started this and borrow != limit in first version. But it was complicated and big.. Finally, I set borrow=limit but I didn't remove "borrrow" because it seems to help a man to undetstand the whole logic. I'm now retrying borrow != limit version, again. (but no good progress ;) Thanks, -Kame -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org