On 12/08/2011 11:21 PM, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote:
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.
I forgot to add them to the patch itself, but they are in the CC list of
the messages.
So they did get the mail.
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;
?
Because I thought that making sure that everybody in the chain is
consistent, it will make things simpler for us. But I am happy to change
that if you prefer.
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;
Noted.
==
+ /*
+ * 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 ?
Well, I removed almost all instances of it from previous patches, so I
guess this one can go as well.
--
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>