From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail191.messagelabs.com (mail191.messagelabs.com [216.82.242.19]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 220CD6B00C4 for ; Fri, 28 Aug 2009 10:29:17 -0400 (EDT) Received: from m4.gw.fujitsu.co.jp ([10.0.50.74]) by fgwmail6.fujitsu.co.jp (Fujitsu Gateway) with ESMTP id n7SETA2w009554 for (envelope-from kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com); Fri, 28 Aug 2009 23:29:10 +0900 Received: from smail (m4 [127.0.0.1]) by outgoing.m4.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7593945DE70 for ; Fri, 28 Aug 2009 23:29:10 +0900 (JST) Received: from s4.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (s4.gw.fujitsu.co.jp [10.0.50.94]) by m4.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 52A6B45DE6E for ; Fri, 28 Aug 2009 23:29:10 +0900 (JST) Received: from s4.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by s4.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 31CD91DB8044 for ; Fri, 28 Aug 2009 23:29:10 +0900 (JST) Received: from ml11.s.css.fujitsu.com (ml11.s.css.fujitsu.com [10.249.87.101]) by s4.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id C82431DB8040 for ; Fri, 28 Aug 2009 23:29:09 +0900 (JST) Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <20090828132643.GM4889@balbir.in.ibm.com> References: <20090828132015.10a42e40.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> <20090828132321.e4a497bb.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> <20090828072007.GH4889@balbir.in.ibm.com> <20090828163523.e51678be.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> <20090828132643.GM4889@balbir.in.ibm.com> Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2009 23:29:09 +0900 (JST) Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 1/5] memcg: change for softlimit. From: "KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-2022-jp Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org To: balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com Cc: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki , "linux-mm@kvack.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "nishimura@mxp.nes.nec.co.jp" List-ID: Balbir Singh wrote: > * KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki [2009-08-28 > 16:35:23]: > >> >> Current soft-limit RB-tree will be easily broken i.e. not-sorted >> correctly >> if used under use_hierarchy=1. >> > > Not true, I think the sorted-ness is delayed and is seen when we pick > a tree for reclaim. Think of it as being lazy :) > plz explain how enexpectedly unsorted RB-tree can work sanely. >> My patch disallows set softlimit to Bob and Mike, just allows against >> Gold >> because there can be considered as the same class, hierarchy. >> > > But Bob and Mike might need to set soft limits between themselves. if > soft limit of gold is 1G and bob needs to be close to 750M and mike > 250M, how do we do it without supporting what we have today? > Don't use hierarchy or don't use softlimit. (I never think fine-grain soft limit can be useful.) Anyway, I have to modify unnecessary hacks for res_counter of softlimit. plz allow modification. that's bad. I postpone RB-tree breakage problem, plz explain it or fix it by yourself. 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