[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20110614094811.GD6371@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2011 11:48:11 +0200
From: Johannes Weiner <jweiner@...hat.com>
To: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>
Cc: "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
"akpm@...ux-foundation.org" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
"nishimura@....nes.nec.co.jp" <nishimura@....nes.nec.co.jp>,
"bsingharora@...il.com" <bsingharora@...il.com>,
"hannes@...xchg.org" <hannes@...xchg.org>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>, Ying Han <yinghan@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [BUGFIX][PATCH 4/5] memcg: fix wrong check of noswap with
softlimit
On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 12:11:05PM +0900, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote:
> >From 0a0358d300330a4ba86e39ea56ed63f1e4519dfd Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>
> Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2011 10:31:16 +0900
> Subject: [PATCH 4/5] fix wrong check of noswap with softlimit
>
> Hierarchical reclaim doesn't swap out if memsw and resource limits are
> same (memsw_is_minimum == true) because we would hit mem+swap limit
> anyway (during hard limit reclaim).
> If it comes to the solft limit we shouldn't consider memsw_is_minimum at
> all because it doesn't make much sense. Either the soft limit is bellow
> the hard limit and then we cannot hit mem+swap limit or the direct
> reclaim takes a precedence.
>
> Reviewed-by: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>
> Acked-by: Daisuke Nishimura <nishimura@....nes.nec.co.jp>
> Signed-off-by: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>
Acked-by: Johannes Weiner <jweiner@...hat.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