Messages in this thread |  | | From | kamezawa.hiroyu@jp ... | Date | Mon, 16 Jun 2008 22:26:42 +0900 (JST) | Subject | Re: Re: [PATCH 1/6] res_counter: handle limit change |
| |
----- Original Message -----
>> Definitely No. I think counters which cannot be shrink should return -EBUSY >> by shrink_usage() when it cannot do it. > >Wouldn't that be all counters except for the memory controller RSS counter? I >can't see anyone besides the memory controller supporting shrink_usage(). > Slab_counter is a candidate. But ok, if everyone doesn't like this, I'll abandon the whole and rewrite it as v3.
And condidering your point, my high-low-watermark patch set should be implemented within memcg and adding high/low to res_counter is too bad. I'll change my plan. But res_counter is less useful rather than I thought of ; ) Besides it doesn't support any feedbacks, it just restricts the access to para meters.
BTW, I believe current res_counter's behavior to return success at usage > limit case is very bad. I'd like to return -EBUSY. How do you think ? (And I also think res_counter_charge returns -ENOMEM is BUG. It should be -EBUSY.)
Thanks, -Kame
|  |