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

[Pavel Emelyanov <xemul@openvz.org>]

kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
>>>> I think when I did all in memcg, someone will comment that "why do that
>>>> all in memcg ? please implement generic one to avoid code duplication"
>>> Hm... But we're choosing between
>>>
>>> sys_write->xxx_cgroup_write->res_counter_set_limit->xxx_cgroup_call
>>>
>>> and
>>>
>>> sys_write->xxx_cgroup_write->res_counter_set_limit
>>>                           ->xxx_cgroup_call
>>>
>>> With the sizeof(void *)-bytes difference in res_counter, nNo?
>>>
>> I can't catch what you mean. What is res_counter_set_limit here ?
>> (my patche's ?) and what is sizeof(void *)-bytes ?
>>
>> Is it so strange to add following algorithm in res_counter?
>> ==
>> set_limit -> fail -> shrink -> set limit -> fail ->shrink
>> -> success -> return 0
>> ==
>> I think this is enough generic.
>>
> This was previous request from Paul. (to hierarchy patch set)
> 
> http://marc.info/?l=linux-mm&m=121257010530546&w=2
> 
> I think this version meets his request. and I like this.
> 
> I don't want to waste more weeks. Then, what is bad ?
> removing res_counter_ops is okay ?

Yes. I'd prefer seeing this logic in memory controller w/o additional
hacks in res_counter.

> 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>