From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from psmtp.com (na3sys010amx197.postini.com [74.125.245.197]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 675986B004F for ; Fri, 9 Dec 2011 07:40:59 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <4EE201A0.9040601@parallels.com> Date: Fri, 9 Dec 2011 10:40:00 -0200 From: Glauber Costa MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 1/9] Basic kernel memory functionality for the Memory Controller References: <1323120903-2831-1-git-send-email-glommer@parallels.com> <1323120903-2831-2-git-send-email-glommer@parallels.com> <20111209102113.cdb85da8.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> In-Reply-To: <20111209102113.cdb85da8.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, lizf@cn.fujitsu.com, ebiederm@xmission.com, davem@davemloft.net, gthelen@google.com, netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, kirill@shutemov.name, avagin@parallels.com, devel@openvz.org, eric.dumazet@gmail.com, cgroups@vger.kernel.org, hannes@cmpxchg.org, mhocko@suse.cz, Paul Menage On 12/08/2011 11:21 PM, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote: > On Mon, 5 Dec 2011 19:34:55 -0200 > Glauber Costa wrote: > >> This patch lays down the foundation for the kernel memory component >> of the Memory Controller. >> >> As of today, I am only laying down the following files: >> >> * memory.independent_kmem_limit >> * memory.kmem.limit_in_bytes (currently ignored) >> * memory.kmem.usage_in_bytes (always zero) >> >> Signed-off-by: Glauber Costa >> Reviewed-by: Kirill A. Shutemov >> CC: Paul Menage >> CC: Greg Thelen > > As I wrote, please CC Johannes and Michal Hocko for memcg related parts. I forgot to add them to the patch itself, but they are in the CC list of the messages. So they did get the mail. > A few questions. > == >> + val = !!val; >> + >> + if (parent&& parent->use_hierarchy&& >> + (val != parent->kmem_independent_accounting)) >> + return -EINVAL; > == > Hm, why you check val != parent->kmem_independent_accounting ? > > if (parent&& parent->use_hierarchy) > return -EINVAL; > ? Because I thought that making sure that everybody in the chain is consistent, it will make things simpler for us. But I am happy to change that if you prefer. > BTW, you didn't check this cgroup has children or not. > I think > > if (this_cgroup->use_hierarchy&& > !list_empty(this_cgroup->childlen)) > return -EINVAL; > Noted. > == >> + /* >> + * TODO: We need to handle the case in which we are doing >> + * independent kmem accounting as authorized by our parent, >> + * but then our parent changes its parameter. >> + */ >> + cgroup_lock(); >> + memcg->kmem_independent_accounting = val; >> + cgroup_unlock(); > > Do we need cgroup_lock() here ? Well, I removed almost all instances of it from previous patches, so I guess this one can go as well. -- 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