[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20080604183157.d6d1289d.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>
Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2008 18:31:57 +0900
From: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>
To: "Paul Menage" <menage@...gle.com>
Cc: "linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com" <balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
"xemul@...nvz.org" <xemul@...nvz.org>,
"yamamoto@...inux.co.jp" <yamamoto@...inux.co.jp>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/2] memcg: hierarchy support (v3)
On Wed, 4 Jun 2008 02:15:32 -0700
"Paul Menage" <menage@...gle.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 4, 2008 at 2:15 AM, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
> <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com> wrote:
> >> Should we try to support hierarchy and non-hierarchy cgroups in the
> >> same tree? Maybe we should just enforce the restrictions that:
> >>
> >> - the hierarchy mode can't be changed on a cgroup if you have children
> >> or any non-zero usage/limit
> >> - a cgroup inherits its parent's hierarchy mode.
> >>
> > Ah, my patch does it (I think). explanation is bad.
> >
> > - mem cgroup's mode can be changed against ROOT node which has no children.
> > - a child inherits parent's mode.
>
> But if it can only be changed for the root cgroup when it has no
> children, than implies that all cgroups must have the same mode. I'm
> suggesting that we allow non-root cgroups to change their mode, as
> long as:
>
> - they have no children
>
> - they don't have any limit charged to their parent (which means that
> either they have a zero limit, or they have no parent, or they're not
> in hierarchy mode)
>
Hmm, I got your point. Your suggestion seems reasonable.
I'll try that logic in the next version.
Thanks,
-Kame
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists