[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <400765.1213607050433.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>
Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2008 18:04:10 +0900 (JST)
From: kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com
To: balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com
Cc: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>,
linux-mm@...ck.org, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
menage@...gle.com, xemul@...nvz.org, yamamoto@...inux.co.jp,
nishimura@....nes.nec.co.jp, lizf@...fujitsu.com
Subject: Re: Re: [PATCH 1/6] res_counter: handle limit change
----- Original Message -----
>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 designe
d
>to be generic and work across controllers. Isn't the memory controller a bett
er
>place for such ops.
>
Definitely No. I think counters which cannot be shrink should return -EBUSY
by shrink_usage() when it cannot do it.
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