Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757854AbYFPN1s (ORCPT ); Mon, 16 Jun 2008 09:27:48 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1757616AbYFPN1i (ORCPT ); Mon, 16 Jun 2008 09:27:38 -0400 Received: from fgwmail6.fujitsu.co.jp ([192.51.44.36]:40655 "EHLO fgwmail6.fujitsu.co.jp" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1757595AbYFPN1h (ORCPT ); Mon, 16 Jun 2008 09:27:37 -0400 From: kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com Message-ID: <32834312.1213622802513.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2008 22:26:42 +0900 (JST) To: balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com Subject: Re: Re: [PATCH 1/6] res_counter: handle limit change Cc: kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com, 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: <48565CBA.2040309@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: <48565CBA.2040309@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <48562AFF.9050804@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20080613182714.265fe6d2.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> <20080613182924.c73fe9eb.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> <400765.1213607050433.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1227 Lines: 32 ----- Original Message ----- >> Definitely No. I think counters which cannot be shrink should return -EBUSY >> by shrink_usage() when it cannot do it. > >Wouldn't that be all counters except for the memory controller RSS counter? I >can't see anyone besides the memory controller supporting shrink_usage(). > Slab_counter is a candidate. But ok, if everyone doesn't like this, I'll abandon the whole and rewrite it as v3. And condidering your point, my high-low-watermark patch set should be implemented within memcg and adding high/low to res_counter is too bad. I'll change my plan. But res_counter is less useful rather than I thought of ; ) Besides it doesn't support any feedbacks, it just restricts the access to para meters. BTW, I believe current res_counter's behavior to return success at usage > limit case is very bad. I'd like to return -EBUSY. How do you think ? (And I also think res_counter_charge returns -ENOMEM is BUG. It should be -EBUSY.) 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/