Michal Hocko <mhocko@xxxxxxx> writes:
> On Fri 16-03-12 23:09:24, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote:
> [...]
>> diff --git a/mm/memcontrol.c b/mm/memcontrol.c
>> index 6728a7a..4b36c5e 100644
>> --- a/mm/memcontrol.c
>> +++ b/mm/memcontrol.c
> [...]
>> @@ -4887,6 +5013,7 @@ err_cleanup:
>> static struct cgroup_subsys_state * __ref
>> mem_cgroup_create(struct cgroup_subsys *ss, struct cgroup *cont)
>> {
>> + int idx;
>> struct mem_cgroup *memcg, *parent;
>> long error = -ENOMEM;
>> int node;
>> @@ -4929,9 +5056,14 @@ mem_cgroup_create(struct cgroup_subsys *ss, struct cgroup *cont)
>> * mem_cgroup(see mem_cgroup_put).
>> */
>> mem_cgroup_get(parent);
>> + for (idx = 0; idx < HUGE_MAX_HSTATE; idx++)
>> + res_counter_init(&memcg->hugepage[idx],
>> + &parent->hugepage[idx]);
>
> Hmm, I do not think we want to make groups deeper in the hierarchy
> unlimited as we cannot reclaim. Shouldn't we copy the limit from the parent?
> Still not ideal but slightly more expected behavior IMO.
But we should be limiting the child group based on parent's limit only
when hierarchy is set right ?
>
> The hierarchy setups are still interesting and the limitations should be
> described in the documentation...
>
It should behave similar to memcg. ie, if hierarchy is set, then we limit
using MIN(parent's limit, child's limit). May be I am missing some of
the details of memcg use_hierarchy config. My goal was to keep it
similar to memcg. Can you explain why do you think the patch would
make it any different ?
-aneesh
--
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>