On Sun, Dec 11, 2011 at 11:47 PM, Glauber Costa <glommer@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> +Memory limits as specified by the standard Memory Controller may or may not
> +take kernel memory into consideration. This is achieved through the file
> +memory.independent_kmem_limit. A Value different than 0 will allow for kernel
s/Value/value/
It is probably worth documenting the default value for
memory.independent_kmem_limit? I figure it would be zero at root and
and inherited from parents. But I think the implementation differs.
> @@ -277,6 +281,11 @@ struct mem_cgroup {
> */
> unsigned long move_charge_at_immigrate;
> /*
> + * Should kernel memory limits be stabilished independently
> + * from user memory ?
> + */
> + int kmem_independent_accounting;
I have no serious objection, but a full int seems like overkill for a
boolean value.
> +static int register_kmem_files(struct cgroup *cont, struct cgroup_subsys *ss)
> +{
> + int ret = 0;
> +
> + ret = cgroup_add_files(cont, ss, kmem_cgroup_files,
> + ARRAY_SIZE(kmem_cgroup_files));
> + return ret;
If you want to this function could be condensed down to:
return cgroup_add_files(...);
--
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