Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753421AbZGMAyR (ORCPT ); Sun, 12 Jul 2009 20:54:17 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751435AbZGMAyH (ORCPT ); Sun, 12 Jul 2009 20:54:07 -0400 Received: from fgwmail6.fujitsu.co.jp ([192.51.44.36]:48648 "EHLO fgwmail6.fujitsu.co.jp" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751315AbZGMAyG (ORCPT ); Sun, 12 Jul 2009 20:54:06 -0400 X-SecurityPolicyCheck-FJ: OK by FujitsuOutboundMailChecker v1.3.1 Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2009 09:52:09 +0900 From: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki To: "Vladislav D. Buzov" Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List , Linux Containers Mailing List , Dan Malek , Andrew Morton , Paul Menage , Balbir Singh , linux-mm@kvack.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] Memory usage limit notification addition to memcg Message-Id: <20090713095209.d8b6e566.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> In-Reply-To: <4A554B54.3080903@embeddedalley.com> References: <1239660512-25468-1-git-send-email-dan@embeddedalley.com> <1246998310-16764-1-git-send-email-vbuzov@embeddedalley.com> <1246998310-16764-2-git-send-email-vbuzov@embeddedalley.com> <20090708095616.cdfe8c7c.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> <4A554B54.3080903@embeddedalley.com> 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: 1293 Lines: 34 On Wed, 08 Jul 2009 18:43:48 -0700 "Vladislav D. Buzov" wrote: > KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote: > > 2 points. > > - Do we have to check this always we account ? > > > What are the options? Every N pages? How to select N? > I think you can reuse Balbir's softlimit event counter. (see v9.) > > If this is true, "set limit" should be checked to guarantee this. > > plz allow minus this for avoiding mess. > Setting the memory controller cgroup limit and the notification > threshold are two separate operations. There isn't any "mess," just some > validation testing for reporting back to the source of the request. When > changing the memory controller limit, we ensure the threshold limit is > never allowed "negative." At most, the threshold limit will be equal the > memory controller cgroup limit. Otherwise, the arithmetic and > conditional tests during the operational part of the software becomes > more complex, which we don't want. > Hmm, then, plz this interface put under "set_limit_mutex". 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/