From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com Message-ID: <400765.1213607050433.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2008 18:04:10 +0900 (JST) Subject: Re: Re: [PATCH 1/6] res_counter: handle limit change In-Reply-To: <48562AFF.9050804@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-2022-jp" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit References: <48562AFF.9050804@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20080613182714.265fe6d2.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> <20080613182924.c73fe9eb.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com Cc: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki , linux-mm@kvack.org, LKML , menage@google.com, xemul@openvz.org, yamamoto@valinux.co.jp, nishimura@mxp.nes.nec.co.jp, lizf@cn.fujitsu.com List-ID: ----- Original Message ----- >KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote: >> Add a support to shrink_usage_at_limit_change feature to res_counter. >> memcg will use this to drop pages. >> >> Change log: xxx -> v4 (new file.) >> - cut out the limit-change part from hierarchy patch set. >> - add "retry_count" arguments to shrink_usage(). This allows that we don't >> have to set the default retry loop count. >> - res_counter_check_under_val() is added to support subsystem. >> - res_counter_init() is res_counter_init_ops(cnt, NULL) >> >> Signed-off-by: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki >> > >Does shrink_usage() really belong to res_counters? Could a task limiter, a >CPU/IO bandwidth controller use this callback? Resource Counters were designe d >to be generic and work across controllers. Isn't the memory controller a bett er >place for such ops. > Definitely No. I think counters which cannot be shrink should return -EBUSY by shrink_usage() when it cannot do it. 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