Re: Re: [PATCH 1/6] res_counter: handle limit change

[kamezawa . hiroyu]

----- Original Message -----
>> Okay, maye all you want is "don't increase the size of res_counter"
>
>Actually no, what I want is not to put indirections level when
>not required.
>
"not required" ? I think you miss the point that this patch implements some
feedback algorithm in res_counter. If res_counter doesn't support it,
Okay, I'll do in memcg. But please see this request from Paul in the prev vers
ion.
 http://marc.info/?l=linux-mm&m=121257010530546&w=2
And what benefits we can get by implementing feedback per subcgroups ?

>But keeping res_counter as small as possible is also my wish. :)
>
>>>> Is it so strange to add following algorithm in res_counter?
>>>> ==
>>>> set_limit -> fail -> shrink -> set limit -> fail ->shrink
>>>> -> success -> return 0
>>>> ==
>>>> I think this is enough generic.
>>> It is, but my point is - we're calling the set_limit (this is a
>>> res_counter_resize_limit from your patch, sorry for the confusion again)
>>> routine right from the cgroup's write callback and thus can call
>>> the desired "ops->shrink_usage" directly, w/o additional level of
>>> indirection.
>>>
>> Hmm, to do that, I'd like to remove strategy function from res_counter.
>
>Oops... I'm looking at 2.6.26-rc5-mm1's res_counter and don't see such.
>I tried to follow the changes in res_counter, but it looks like I've
>already missed something. 
>
>What do you mean by "strategy function from res_counter"?
>
Please ignore. my confusion.
"don't call res_counter_write() at set limit" is ok.

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/