On 23/02/2017 02:16, Balbir Singh wrote: > On Wed, Feb 22, 2017 at 04:58:11PM +0100, Laurent Dufour wrote: >> Until a soft limit is set to a cgroup, the soft limit data are useless >> so delay this allocation when a limit is set. >> >> Suggested-by: Michal Hocko <mhocko@xxxxxxxxxx> >> Signed-off-by: Laurent Dufour <ldufour@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >> --- > <snip> >> @@ -3000,6 +3035,8 @@ static ssize_t mem_cgroup_write(struct kernfs_open_file *of, >> } >> break; >> case RES_SOFT_LIMIT: >> + if (!soft_limit_initialized) >> + soft_limit_initialize(); > > What happens if this fails? Do we disable this interface? > It's a good idea, but I wonder if we can deal with certain > memory cgroups not supporting soft limits due to memory > shortage at the time of using them. Thanks Balbir for the review. Regarding this point, Michal sent a new proposal which will return -ENOMEM in the case the initialization failed. I'll send a new series in that way. > >> memcg->soft_limit = nr_pages; >> ret = 0; >> break; > > Balbir Singh. > -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>
