From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from m2.gw.fujitsu.co.jp ([10.0.50.72]) by fgwmail6.fujitsu.co.jp (Fujitsu Gateway) with ESMTP id mA6EUUg3000736 for (envelope-from kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com); Thu, 6 Nov 2008 23:30:30 +0900 Received: from smail (m2 [127.0.0.1]) by outgoing.m2.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0B3D545DD7A for ; Thu, 6 Nov 2008 23:30:30 +0900 (JST) Received: from s6.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (s6.gw.fujitsu.co.jp [10.0.50.96]) by m2.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id DCA5745DD78 for ; Thu, 6 Nov 2008 23:30:29 +0900 (JST) Received: from s6.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by s6.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id C887E1DB803E for ; Thu, 6 Nov 2008 23:30:29 +0900 (JST) Received: from ml11.s.css.fujitsu.com (ml11.s.css.fujitsu.com [10.249.87.101]) by s6.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7D69BE08001 for ; Thu, 6 Nov 2008 23:30:29 +0900 (JST) Message-ID: <6941.10.75.179.62.1225981828.squirrel@webmail-b.css.fujitsu.com> In-Reply-To: <4912F53A.2070407@linux.vnet.ibm.com> References: <20081105171637.1b393333.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> <49129493.9070103@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20081106194153.220157ec.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> <4912F53A.2070407@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Date: Thu, 6 Nov 2008 23:30:28 +0900 (JST) Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 7/6] memcg: add atribute (for change bahavior ofrmdir) From: "KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain;charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com Cc: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki , "linux-mm@kvack.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "menage@google.com" , "nishimura@mxp.nes.nec.co.jp" List-ID: Balbir Singh said: > KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote: >> BTW, cost of movement itself is not far from cost for force_empty. >> >> If you can't find why "forget" is bad, please consider one more day. > > The attributes seem quite reasonable, I've taken a quick look, not done a > full > review or test. > Thanks, I'll go ahead in this direction. By the way, should we keep "one value per one file" for attributes ? If so, I'll add a new file just for this. Current my patch allows prural attributes set on a file. 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