Re: [PATCH 2/4] Memory controller soft limit interface (v3)

[Balbir Singh]

* KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> [2009-03-02 11:03:23]:

> On Sun, 01 Mar 2009 12:00:11 +0530
> Balbir Singh <balbir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> > 
> > From: Balbir Singh <balbir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > 
> > Changelog v2...v1
> > 1. Add support for res_counter_check_soft_limit_locked. This is used
> >    by the hierarchy code.
> > 
> > Add an interface to allow get/set of soft limits. Soft limits for memory plus
> > swap controller (memsw) is currently not supported. Resource counters have
> > been enhanced to support soft limits and new type RES_SOFT_LIMIT has been
> > added. Unlike hard limits, soft limits can be directly set and do not
> > need any reclaim or checks before setting them to a newer value.
> > 
> > Kamezawa-San raised a question as to whether soft limit should belong
> > to res_counter. Since all resources understand the basic concepts of
> > hard and soft limits, it is justified to add soft limits here. Soft limits
> > are a generic resource usage feature, even file system quotas support
> > soft limits.
> > 
> I don't convice adding more logics to res_counter is a good to do, yet.
>

Even though it is extensible and you pay the cost only when soft
limits is turned on? Can you show me why you are not convinced?
 
-- 
	Balbir
--
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/