Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754758AbZFCDyQ (ORCPT ); Tue, 2 Jun 2009 23:54:16 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753341AbZFCDyC (ORCPT ); Tue, 2 Jun 2009 23:54:02 -0400 Received: from fgwmail5.fujitsu.co.jp ([192.51.44.35]:46351 "EHLO fgwmail5.fujitsu.co.jp" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753277AbZFCDyB (ORCPT ); Tue, 2 Jun 2009 23:54:01 -0400 Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2009 12:52:28 +0900 From: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki To: Daisuke Nishimura Cc: LKML , linux-mm , Andrew Morton , Balbir Singh , Li Zefan , Paul Menage Subject: Re: [PATCH mmotm 2/2] memcg: allow mem.limit bigger than memsw.limit iff unlimited Message-Id: <20090603125228.368ecaf7.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> In-Reply-To: <20090603115027.80f9169b.nishimura@mxp.nes.nec.co.jp> References: <20090603114518.301cef4d.nishimura@mxp.nes.nec.co.jp> <20090603115027.80f9169b.nishimura@mxp.nes.nec.co.jp> Organization: FUJITSU Co. LTD. X-Mailer: Sylpheed 2.5.0 (GTK+ 2.10.14; i686-pc-mingw32) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2785 Lines: 72 On Wed, 3 Jun 2009 11:50:27 +0900 Daisuke Nishimura wrote: > Now users cannot set mem.limit bigger than memsw.limit. > This patch allows mem.limit bigger than memsw.limit iff mem.limit==unlimited. > > By this, users can set memsw.limit without setting mem.limit. > I think it's usefull if users want to limit memsw only. > They must set mem.limit first and memsw.limit to the same value now for this purpose. > They can save the first step by this patch. > I don't like this. No benefits to users. The user should know when they set memsw.limit they have to set memory.limit. This just complicates things. If you want to do this, add an interface as memory.all.limit_in_bytes (or some better name) and allow to set memory.limit and memory.memsw.limit _at once_. But I'm not sure it's worth to try. Saving user's few steps by the kenerl patch ? Thanks, -Kame > Signed-off-by: Daisuke Nishimura > --- > mm/memcontrol.c | 10 ++++++---- > 1 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/mm/memcontrol.c b/mm/memcontrol.c > index 6629ed2..2b63cb1 100644 > --- a/mm/memcontrol.c > +++ b/mm/memcontrol.c > @@ -1742,11 +1742,12 @@ static int mem_cgroup_resize_limit(struct mem_cgroup *memcg, > /* > * Rather than hide all in some function, I do this in > * open coded manner. You see what this really does. > - * We have to guarantee mem->res.limit < mem->memsw.limit. > + * We have to guarantee mem->res.limit < mem->memsw.limit, > + * except for mem->res.limit == RESOURCE_MAX(unlimited) case. > */ > mutex_lock(&set_limit_mutex); > memswlimit = res_counter_read_u64(&memcg->memsw, RES_LIMIT); > - if (memswlimit < val) { > + if (val != RESOURCE_MAX && memswlimit < val) { > ret = -EINVAL; > mutex_unlock(&set_limit_mutex); > break; > @@ -1789,11 +1790,12 @@ static int mem_cgroup_resize_memsw_limit(struct mem_cgroup *memcg, > /* > * Rather than hide all in some function, I do this in > * open coded manner. You see what this really does. > - * We have to guarantee mem->res.limit < mem->memsw.limit. > + * We have to guarantee mem->res.limit < mem->memsw.limit, > + * except for mem->res.limit == RESOURCE_MAX(unlimited) case. > */ > mutex_lock(&set_limit_mutex); > memlimit = res_counter_read_u64(&memcg->res, RES_LIMIT); > - if (memlimit > val) { > + if (memlimit != RESOURCE_MAX && memlimit > val) { > ret = -EINVAL; > mutex_unlock(&set_limit_mutex); > break; > -- 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/