Re: [RFC][PATCH 1/4] memcg: add softlimit interface and utilitiy function.

[KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>]

On Mon, 9 Mar 2009 13:14:49 +0530
Balbir Singh <balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:

> * KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> [2009-03-09 16:39:07]:
> 
> > From: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>
> > Adds an interface for defining sotlimit per memcg. (no handler in this patch.)
> > softlimit.priority and queue for softlimit is added in the next patch.
> > 
> > 
> > Changelog v1->v2:
> >  - For refactoring, divided a patch into 2 part and this patch just
> >    involves memory.softlimit interface.
> >  - Removed governor-detect routine, it was buggy in design.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>
> > ---
> >  mm/memcontrol.c |   62 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--
> >  1 file changed, 60 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> 
> 
> This patch breaks the semantics of resource counters. We would like to
> use resource counters to track all overhead. I've refined my tracking
> to an extent that the overhead does not show up at all, unless soft
> limits kick in. I oppose keeping soft limits outside of resource
> counters.

Hmm, them, moving mem->softlimit to res->softlimit is ok ?

If no more "branch" to res_counter_charge/uncharge(), moving this to
res_counter is ok to me.


Thanks,
-Kame


> 
> -- 
> 	Balbir
> 

--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org.  For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>