[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <48562AFF.9050804@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2008 14:27:35 +0530
From: Balbir Singh <balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>
CC: "linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"menage@...gle.com" <menage@...gle.com>,
"xemul@...nvz.org" <xemul@...nvz.org>,
"yamamoto@...inux.co.jp" <yamamoto@...inux.co.jp>,
"nishimura@....nes.nec.co.jp" <nishimura@....nes.nec.co.jp>,
"lizf@...fujitsu.com" <lizf@...fujitsu.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/6] res_counter: handle limit change
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 <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>
>
Does shrink_usage() really belong to res_counters? Could a task limiter, a
CPU/IO bandwidth controller use this callback? Resource Counters were designed
to be generic and work across controllers. Isn't the memory controller a better
place for such ops.
--
Warm Regards,
Balbir Singh
Linux Technology Center
IBM, ISTL
--
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