On Mon, Jul 09, 2012 at 01:43:23PM +0900, Kamezawa Hiroyuki wrote:
>(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 ?
just like in function cmem_cgroup_hierarchy_write:
if((!parent_memcg || !parent_memcg->use_hierarchy) &&
(val == 1 || val == 0) {
if (list_empty(&cont->children))
memcg->use_hierarchy = val;
else
return -EBUSY;
} else
return = -EINVAL;
If memcg->use_hierarchy && has children memcg, the user can try again
if children memcg disappear. Or I miss something ....
Regards,
Wanpeng Li
>
>
>> ---
>> 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>