Re: Re: [RFC][PATCH 1/2] memcg: res_counter hierarchy

[kamezawa . hiroyu]

----- Original Message -----

>> @@ -135,13 +138,118 @@ ssize_t res_counter_write(struct res_cou
>>  		if (*end != '\0')
>>  			goto out_free;
>>  	}
>> -	spin_lock_irqsave(&counter->lock, flags);
>> -	val = res_counter_member(counter, member);
>> -	*val = tmp;
>> -	spin_unlock_irqrestore(&counter->lock, flags);
>> -	ret = nbytes;
>> +	if (member != RES_LIMIT || !callback) {
>
>is there any reason to check member != RES_LIMIT here,
>rather than in callers?

Hmm...ok. This is messy. I'll rearrange this.


>
>> +/*
>> + * Move resource to its parent.
>> + *   child->limit -= val.
>> + *   parent->usage -= val.
>> + *   parent->limit -= val.
>
>s/limit/for_children/
>
>> + */
>> +
>> +int res_counter_repay_resource(struct res_counter *child,
>> +				struct res_counter *parent,
>> +				unsigned long long val,
>> +				res_shrink_callback_t callback, int retry)
>
>can you reduce gratuitous differences between
>res_counter_borrow_resource and res_counter_repay_resource?
>eg. 'success' vs 'done', how to decrement 'retry'.
>

Ah, sorry. I'll rewrite.
I'll make next version's quality better.

Thanks,
-Kame



--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/