On Thu, 8 Mar 2012 17:38:18 -0800 Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Fri, 9 Mar 2012 10:22:55 +0900 KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On Thu, 8 Mar 2012 12:29:51 -0800 > > Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > On Wed, 7 Mar 2012 19:14:49 -0800 (PST) > > > David Rientjes <rientjes@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > This patch prevents tasks from being attached to a memcg if there is a > > > > hard limit of zero. > > > > > > We're talking about the memcg's limit_in_bytes here, yes? > > > > > > > Additionally, the hard limit may not be changed to > > > > zero if there are tasks attached. > > > > > > hm, well... why? That would be user error, wouldn't it? What is > > > special about limit_in_bytes=0? The memcg will also be unviable if > > > limit_in_bytes=1, but we permit that. > > > > > > IOW, confused. > > > > > Ah, yes. limit_in_bytes < some small size can cause the same trouble. > > Hmm... should we have configurable min_limit_in_bytes as sysctl or root memcg's > > attaribute.. ? > > Why do *anything*? If the operator chose an irrational configuration > then things won't work correctly and the operator will then fix the > configuration? > Because the result of 'error operaton' is SIGKILL to a task, which may be owned by very importang customer of hosting service. Isn't this severe punishment for error operation ? Considering again, I have 2 thoughts. - it should be guarded by MiddleWare, it's not kernel job ! - memcg should be more easy-to-use, friendly to users. If the result is just an error as EINVAL or EBUSY, I may not be nervous.... 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>