Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757138AbYFPJF2 (ORCPT ); Mon, 16 Jun 2008 05:05:28 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1756397AbYFPJFM (ORCPT ); Mon, 16 Jun 2008 05:05:12 -0400 Received: from fgwmail6.fujitsu.co.jp ([192.51.44.36]:60438 "EHLO fgwmail6.fujitsu.co.jp" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752132AbYFPJFL (ORCPT ); Mon, 16 Jun 2008 05:05:11 -0400 From: kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com Message-ID: <400765.1213607050433.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2008 18:04:10 +0900 (JST) To: balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com Subject: Re: Re: [PATCH 1/6] res_counter: handle limit change Cc: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki , linux-mm@kvack.org, LKML , menage@google.com, xemul@openvz.org, yamamoto@valinux.co.jp, nishimura@mxp.nes.nec.co.jp, lizf@cn.fujitsu.com In-Reply-To: <48562AFF.9050804@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-2022-jp" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: @nifty Webmail 2.0 References: <48562AFF.9050804@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20080613182714.265fe6d2.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> <20080613182924.c73fe9eb.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1244 Lines: 35 ----- Original Message ----- >KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote: >> Add a support to shrink_usage_at_limit_change feature to res_counter. >> memcg will use this to drop pages. >> >> Change log: xxx -> v4 (new file.) >> - cut out the limit-change part from hierarchy patch set. >> - add "retry_count" arguments to shrink_usage(). This allows that we don't >> have to set the default retry loop count. >> - res_counter_check_under_val() is added to support subsystem. >> - res_counter_init() is res_counter_init_ops(cnt, NULL) >> >> Signed-off-by: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki >> > >Does shrink_usage() really belong to res_counters? Could a task limiter, a >CPU/IO bandwidth controller use this callback? Resource Counters were designe d >to be generic and work across controllers. Isn't the memory controller a bett er >place for such ops. > Definitely No. I think counters which cannot be shrink should return -EBUSY by shrink_usage() when it cannot do it. 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/