[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20120627202430.GS15811@google.com>
Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2012 13:24:30 -0700
From: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To: David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
Cc: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>, Zhouping Liu <zliu@...hat.com>,
linux-mm@...ck.org, Li Zefan <lizefan@...wei.com>,
CAI Qian <caiqian@...hat.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>
Subject: Re: memcg: cat: memory.memsw.* : Operation not supported
Hello,
On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 01:21:27PM -0700, David Rientjes wrote:
> Well it also has a prerequisite that memcg doesn't have: CONFIG_SWAP, so
Right.
> even if CONFIG_CGROUP_MEM_RES_CTLR_SWAP is folded into
> CONFIG_CGROUP_MEM_RES_CTLR, then these should still depend on CONFIG_SWAP
> since configuring them would imply there is some limit to be enforced.
>
> But to answer your question:
>
> text data bss dec hex filename
> 25777 3644 4128 33549 830d memcontrol.o.swap_disabled
> 27294 4476 4128 35898 8c3a memcontrol.o.swap_enabled
I still wish it's folded into CONFIG_MEMCG and conditionalized just on
CONFIG_SWAP tho.
> Is it really too painful to not create these files when
> CONFIG_CGROUP_MEM_RES_CTLR_SWAP is disabled? If so, can we at least allow
> them to be opened but return -EINVAL if memory.memsw.limit_in_bytes is
> written?
Not at all, that was the first version anyway, which (IIRC) KAME
didn't like and suggested always creating those files. KAME, what do
you think?
Thanks.
--
tejun
--
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