On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 02:31:13PM -0500, Vivek Goyal wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 09:22:42AM +0900, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote:
>
> [..]
> > > +static int mem_cgroup_dirty_bytes_write(struct cgroup *cgrp, struct cftype *cft,
> > > + u64 val)
> > > +{
> > > + struct mem_cgroup *memcg = mem_cgroup_from_cont(cgrp);
> > > + struct mem_cgroup *parent;
> > > +
> > > + if (cgrp->parent == NULL)
> > > + return -EINVAL;
> > > +
> > > + parent = mem_cgroup_from_cont(cgrp->parent);
> > > +
> > > + cgroup_lock();
> > > +
> > > + /* If under hierarchy, only empty-root can set this value */
> > > + if ((parent->use_hierarchy) ||
> > > + (memcg->use_hierarchy && !list_empty(&cgrp->children))) {
> > > + cgroup_unlock();
> > > + return -EINVAL;
> > > + }
> >
> > Okay, then, only hierarchy root can set the value.
> > Please descirbe this kind of important things in patch description.
> >
>
> Hi Andrea,
>
> Why can only root of the hierarchy set set dirty_bytes value? In this
> case, a child cgroup's amount of dirty pages will be controlled by
> dirty_ratio?
I'm rewriting the patch to correctly handle hierarchy. The hierarchy
design is completely broken in this patch.
-Andrea
_______________________________________________
Containers mailing list
Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
