[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <bfd50d44ff730c2720b882a81b7446c6.squirrel@webmail-b.css.fujitsu.com>
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2009 23:29:09 +0900 (JST)
From: "KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki" <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>
To: balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com
Cc: "KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki" <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>,
"linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"nishimura@....nes.nec.co.jp" <nishimura@....nes.nec.co.jp>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 1/5] memcg: change for softlimit.
Balbir Singh wrote:
> * KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com> [2009-08-28
> 16:35:23]:
>
>>
>> Current soft-limit RB-tree will be easily broken i.e. not-sorted
>> correctly
>> if used under use_hierarchy=1.
>>
>
> Not true, I think the sorted-ness is delayed and is seen when we pick
> a tree for reclaim. Think of it as being lazy :)
>
plz explain how enexpectedly unsorted RB-tree can work sanely.
>> My patch disallows set softlimit to Bob and Mike, just allows against
>> Gold
>> because there can be considered as the same class, hierarchy.
>>
>
> But Bob and Mike might need to set soft limits between themselves. if
> soft limit of gold is 1G and bob needs to be close to 750M and mike
> 250M, how do we do it without supporting what we have today?
>
Don't use hierarchy or don't use softlimit.
(I never think fine-grain soft limit can be useful.)
Anyway, I have to modify unnecessary hacks for res_counter of softlimit.
plz allow modification. that's bad.
I postpone RB-tree breakage problem, plz explain it or fix it by yourself.
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