From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from psmtp.com (na3sys010amx152.postini.com [74.125.245.152]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 2E9F46B002C for ; Thu, 8 Mar 2012 20:24:28 -0500 (EST) Received: from m1.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (unknown [10.0.50.71]) by fgwmail5.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 34D283EE0BD for ; Fri, 9 Mar 2012 10:24:26 +0900 (JST) Received: from smail (m1 [127.0.0.1]) by outgoing.m1.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1232945DE5B for ; Fri, 9 Mar 2012 10:24:26 +0900 (JST) Received: from s1.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (s1.gw.fujitsu.co.jp [10.0.50.91]) by m1.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id ECC8B45DE55 for ; Fri, 9 Mar 2012 10:24:25 +0900 (JST) Received: from s1.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by s1.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id D83921DB8053 for ; Fri, 9 Mar 2012 10:24:25 +0900 (JST) Received: from ml14.s.css.fujitsu.com (ml14.s.css.fujitsu.com [10.240.81.134]) by s1.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8BDCB1DB804A for ; Fri, 9 Mar 2012 10:24:25 +0900 (JST) Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2012 10:22:55 +0900 From: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki Subject: Re: [patch] mm, memcg: do not allow tasks to be attached with zero limit Message-Id: <20120309102255.bbf94164.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> In-Reply-To: <20120308122951.2988ec4e.akpm@linux-foundation.org> References: <20120308122951.2988ec4e.akpm@linux-foundation.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Andrew Morton Cc: David Rientjes , Johannes Weiner , Michal Hocko , Balbir Singh , cgroups@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org On Thu, 8 Mar 2012 12:29:51 -0800 Andrew Morton wrote: > On Wed, 7 Mar 2012 19:14:49 -0800 (PST) > David Rientjes wrote: > > > This patch prevents tasks from being attached to a memcg if there is a > > hard limit of zero. > > We're talking about the memcg's limit_in_bytes here, yes? > > > Additionally, the hard limit may not be changed to > > zero if there are tasks attached. > > hm, well... why? That would be user error, wouldn't it? What is > special about limit_in_bytes=0? The memcg will also be unviable if > limit_in_bytes=1, but we permit that. > > IOW, confused. > Ah, yes. limit_in_bytes < some small size can cause the same trouble. Hmm... should we have configurable min_limit_in_bytes as sysctl or root memcg's attaribute.. ? -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/ . Fight unfair telecom internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/ Don't email: email@kvack.org