[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <11930674.1213604250738.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>
Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2008 17:17:30 +0900 (JST)
From: kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com
To: Pavel Emelyanov <xemul@...nvz.org>
Cc: kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com, linux-mm@...ck.org,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, menage@...gle.com,
balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, 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 -----
>> I think when I did all in memcg, someone will comment that "why do that
>> all in memcg ? please implement generic one to avoid code duplication"
>
>Hm... But we're choosing between
>
>sys_write->xxx_cgroup_write->res_counter_set_limit->xxx_cgroup_call
>
>and
>
>sys_write->xxx_cgroup_write->res_counter_set_limit
> ->xxx_cgroup_call
>
>With the sizeof(void *)-bytes difference in res_counter, nNo?
>
I can't catch what you mean. What is res_counter_set_limit here ?
(my patche's ?) and what is sizeof(void *)-bytes ?
Is it so strange to add following algorithm in res_counter?
==
set_limit -> fail -> shrink -> set limit -> fail ->shrink
-> success -> return 0
==
I think this is enough generic.
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