On Mon, 5 Dec 2011 19:34:55 -0200
Glauber Costa <glommer@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> This patch lays down the foundation for the kernel memory component
> of the Memory Controller.
>
> As of today, I am only laying down the following files:
>
> * memory.independent_kmem_limit
> * memory.kmem.limit_in_bytes (currently ignored)
> * memory.kmem.usage_in_bytes (always zero)
>
> Signed-off-by: Glauber Costa <glommer@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Reviewed-by: Kirill A. Shutemov <kirill@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> CC: Paul Menage <paul@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> CC: Greg Thelen <gthelen@xxxxxxxxxx>
As I wrote, please CC Johannes and Michal Hocko for memcg related parts.
A few questions.
==
> + val = !!val;
> +
> + if (parent && parent->use_hierarchy &&
> + (val != parent->kmem_independent_accounting))
> + return -EINVAL;
==
Hm, why you check val != parent->kmem_independent_accounting ?
if (parent && parent->use_hierarchy)
return -EINVAL;
?
BTW, you didn't check this cgroup has children or not.
I think
if (this_cgroup->use_hierarchy &&
!list_empty(this_cgroup->childlen))
return -EINVAL;
==
> + /*
> + * TODO: We need to handle the case in which we are doing
> + * independent kmem accounting as authorized by our parent,
> + * but then our parent changes its parameter.
> + */
> + cgroup_lock();
> + memcg->kmem_independent_accounting = val;
> + cgroup_unlock();
Do we need cgroup_lock() here ?
Thanks,
-Kame
--
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>