Message-ID: <48562BA0.8050200@openvz.org>
Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2008 13:00:16 +0400
From: Pavel Emelyanov <xemul@openvz.org>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.14 (X11/20080421)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com
CC: linux-mm@kvack.org, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, menage@google.com,
       balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com, yamamoto@valinux.co.jp,
       nishimura@mxp.nes.nec.co.jp, lizf@cn.fujitsu.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/6] res_counter:  handle limit change
References: <11930674.1213604250738.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> <48561B68.6060503@openvz.org> <48560A7C.9050501@openvz.org> <20080613182714.265fe6d2.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> <20080613182924.c73fe9eb.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> <33011576.1213601977563.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> <31111909.1213606437203.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>
In-Reply-To: <31111909.1213606437203.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-2022-JP
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1499
Lines: 48

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 from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/