[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150114161747.GH4706@dhcp22.suse.cz>
Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2015 17:17:47 +0100
From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>
To: Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Vladimir Davydov <vdavydov@...allels.com>,
Greg Thelen <gthelen@...gle.com>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
cgroups@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [patch 2/2] mm: memcontrol: default hierarchy interface for
memory
I have overlooked the `none' setting...
On Thu 08-01-15 23:15:04, Johannes Weiner wrote:
[...]
> +static int memory_low_show(struct seq_file *m, void *v)
> +{
> + struct mem_cgroup *memcg = mem_cgroup_from_css(seq_css(m));
> + unsigned long low = ACCESS_ONCE(memcg->low);
> +
> + if (low == 0)
> + seq_printf(m, "none\n");
> + else
> + seq_printf(m, "%llu\n", (u64)low * PAGE_SIZE);
> +
> + return 0;
> +}
This is really confusing. What if somebody wants to protect a group
from being reclaimed? One possible and natural way would by copying
memory.max value but then `none' means something else completely.
Besides that why to call 0, which has a clear meaning, any other name?
Now that I think about the naming `none' doesn't sound that great for
max resp. high either. If for nothing else then for the above copy
example (who knows what shows up later). Sure, a huge number is bad
as well for reasons you have mentioned in other email. `resource_max'
sounds like a better fit to me. But I am lame at naming.
--
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