[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20120815130228.GH23985@dhcp22.suse.cz>
Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2012 15:02:28 +0200
From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>
To: Glauber Costa <glommer@...allels.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
cgroups@...r.kernel.org, devel@...nvz.org,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com, Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>,
David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
Pekka Enberg <penberg@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 04/11] kmem accounting basic infrastructure
On Wed 15-08-12 16:53:40, Glauber Costa wrote:
[...]
> >>> This doesn't check for the hierachy so kmem_accounted might not be in
> >>> sync with it's parents. mem_cgroup_create (below) needs to copy
> >>> kmem_accounted down from the parent and the above needs to check if this
> >>> is a similar dance like mem_cgroup_oom_control_write.
> >>>
> >>
> >> I don't see why we have to.
> >>
> >> I believe in a A/B/C hierarchy, C should be perfectly able to set a
> >> different limit than its parents. Note that this is not a boolean.
> >
> > Ohh, I wasn't clear enough. I am not against setting the _limit_ I just
> > meant that the kmem_accounted should be consistent within the hierarchy.
> >
>
> If a parent of yours is accounted, you get accounted as well. This is
> not the state in this patch, but gets added later. Isn't this enough ?
But if the parent is not accounted, you can set the children to be
accounted, right? Or maybe this is changed later in the series? I didn't
get to the end yet.
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
--
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