(2012/07/05 19:55), Wanpeng Li wrote:
> From: Wanpeng Li <liwp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> When oom-kill-disable modified by the user and current memcg use_hierarchy,
> the change can occur, provided the current memcg has no children. If it
> has children, return -EBUSY is enough.
>
> Signed-off-by: Wanpeng Li <liwp.linux@xxxxxxxxx>
I'm sorry what is the point ? You think -EBUSY should be returned in this case
rather than -EINVAl ? Then, why ?
> ---
> mm/memcontrol.c | 7 +++++--
> 1 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/mm/memcontrol.c b/mm/memcontrol.c
> index 63e36e7..4b64fe0 100644
> --- a/mm/memcontrol.c
> +++ b/mm/memcontrol.c
> @@ -4521,11 +4521,14 @@ static int mem_cgroup_oom_control_write(struct cgroup *cgrp,
>
> cgroup_lock();
> /* oom-kill-disable is a flag for subhierarchy. */
> - if ((parent->use_hierarchy) ||
> - (memcg->use_hierarchy && !list_empty(&cgrp->children))) {
> + if (parent->use_hierarchy) {
> cgroup_unlock();
> return -EINVAL;
> + } else if (memcg->use_hierarchy && !list_empty(&cgrp->children)) {
> + cgroup_unlock();
> + return -EBUSY;
> }
> +
> memcg->oom_kill_disable = val;
> if (!val)
> memcg_oom_recover(memcg);
>
--
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/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>