On Fri, 9 Mar 2012 10:22:55 +0900 KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Thu, 8 Mar 2012 12:29:51 -0800 > Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On Wed, 7 Mar 2012 19:14:49 -0800 (PST) > > David Rientjes <rientjes@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > This patch prevents tasks from being attached to a memcg if there is a > > > hard limit of zero. > > > > We're talking about the memcg's limit_in_bytes here, yes? > > > > > Additionally, the hard limit may not be changed to > > > zero if there are tasks attached. > > > > hm, well... why? That would be user error, wouldn't it? What is > > special about limit_in_bytes=0? The memcg will also be unviable if > > limit_in_bytes=1, but we permit that. > > > > IOW, confused. > > > Ah, yes. limit_in_bytes < some small size can cause the same trouble. > Hmm... should we have configurable min_limit_in_bytes as sysctl or root memcg's > attaribute.. ? Why do *anything*? If the operator chose an irrational configuration then things won't work correctly and the operator will then fix the configuration? -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe cgroups" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
