Re: Re: [PATCH 1/6] res_counter: handle limit change

[kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com]

----- Original Message -----

>> Definitely No. I think counters which cannot be shrink should return -EBUSY
>> by shrink_usage() when it cannot do it. 
>
>Wouldn't that be all counters except for the memory controller RSS counter? I
>can't see anyone besides the memory controller supporting shrink_usage().
>
Slab_counter is a candidate. But ok, if everyone doesn't like this,
I'll abandon the whole and rewrite it as v3. 

And condidering your point, my high-low-watermark patch set should be
implemented within memcg and adding high/low to res_counter is too bad.
I'll change my plan. But res_counter is less useful rather than I thought of ;
)
Besides it doesn't support any feedbacks, it just restricts the access to para
meters.

BTW, I believe current res_counter's behavior to return success
at usage > limit case is very bad. I'd like to return -EBUSY.
How do you think ?
(And I also think res_counter_charge returns -ENOMEM is BUG. It should be
 -EBUSY.)

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: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>