On Mon, Apr 28 2014, Roman Gushchin <klamm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 28.04.2014, 16:27, "Michal Hocko" <mhocko@xxxxxxx>:
>> The series is based on top of the current mmotm tree. Once the series
>> gets accepted I will post a patch which will mark the soft limit as
>> deprecated with a note that it will be eventually dropped. Let me know
>> if you would prefer to have such a patch a part of the series.
>>
>> Thoughts?
>
>
> Looks good to me.
>
> The only question is: are there any ideas how the hierarchy support
> will be used in this case in practice?
> Will someone set low limit for non-leaf cgroups? Why?
>
> Thanks,
> Roman
I imagine that a hosting service may want to give X MB to a top level
memcg (/a) with sub-jobs (/a/b, /a/c) which may(not) have their own
low-limits.
Examples:
case_1) only set low limit on /a. /a/b and /a/c may overcommit /a's
memory (b.limit_in_bytes + c.limit_in_bytes > a.limit_in_bytes).
case_2) low limits on all memcg. But not overcommitting low_limits
(b.low_limit_in_in_bytes + c.low_limit_in_in_bytes <=
a.low_limit_in_in_bytes).
--
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>