[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20080901150417.96a6a322.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>
Date: Mon, 1 Sep 2008 15:04:17 +0900
From: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>
To: Li Zefan <lizf@...fujitsu.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Balbir Singh <balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Pavel Emelianov <xemul@...nvz.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] res_counter: fix off-by-one bug in setting limit
On Mon, 01 Sep 2008 13:43:57 +0800
Li Zefan <lizf@...fujitsu.com> wrote:
> KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote:
> > On Mon, 01 Sep 2008 13:08:55 +0800
> > Li Zefan <lizf@...fujitsu.com> wrote:
> >
> >> I found we can no longer set limit to 0 with 2.6.27-rcX:
> >> # mount -t cgroup -omemory xxx /mnt
> >> # mkdir /mnt/0
> >> # echo 0 > /mnt/0/memory.limit_in_bytes
> >> bash: echo: write error: Device or resource busy
> >>
> >> It turned out 'limit' can't be set to 'usage', which is wrong IMO.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Li Zefan <lizf@...fujitsu.com>
> >
> > But setting limit to 0(usage) in memcg is buggy operation unless you want to see OOM..
> > Hmm..
> >
>
> I used to set 0 limit to test OOM in memcg. I don't think 0 limit is buggy, there's no
> much difference with 0 limit and a very low limit.
>
> And the real issue is, now we can set limit to > usage, but not >= usage. It's odd that
> usage can reach to limit but limit can't be shrinked to usage.
>
ok.
Acked-by: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>
--
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