On Mon, Oct 03, 2011 at 04:19:18PM +0400, Glauber Costa wrote: > On 10/03/2011 04:14 PM, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote: > > On Mon, Oct 03, 2011 at 02:18:42PM +0400, Glauber Costa wrote: > >> This patch introduces kmem.tcp_current_memory file, living in the > >> kmem_cgroup filesystem. It is a simple read-only file that displays the > >> amount of kernel memory currently consumed by the cgroup. > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Glauber Costa<glommer@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > >> CC: David S. Miller<davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > >> CC: Hiroyouki Kamezawa<kamezawa.hiroyu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > >> CC: Eric W. Biederman<ebiederm@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > >> --- > >> Documentation/cgroups/memory.txt | 1 + > >> mm/memcontrol.c | 11 +++++++++++ > >> 2 files changed, 12 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) > >> > >> diff --git a/Documentation/cgroups/memory.txt b/Documentation/cgroups/memory.txt > >> index 1ffde3e..f5a539d 100644 > >> --- a/Documentation/cgroups/memory.txt > >> +++ b/Documentation/cgroups/memory.txt > >> @@ -79,6 +79,7 @@ Brief summary of control files. > >> memory.independent_kmem_limit # select whether or not kernel memory limits are > >> independent of user limits > >> memory.kmem.tcp.max_memory # set/show hard limit for tcp buf memory > >> + memory.kmem.tcp.current_memory # show current tcp buf memory allocation > > > > Both are in pages, right? > > Shouldn't it be scaled to bytes and named uniform with other memcg file? > > memory.kmem.tcp.limit_in_bytes/usage_in_bytes. > > > You are absolutely correct. > Since the internal tcp comparison works, I just ended up never noticing > this. Should we have failcnt and max_usage_in_bytes for tcp as well? -- Kirill A. Shutemov -- 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/ . Fight unfair telecom internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/ Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>