Re: [RFC][PATCH 3/7 v2] res_counter: add res_counter_uncharge_until()

[Hiroyuki Kamezawa]

On Sat, Apr 28, 2012 at 2:08 AM, Glauber Costa <glommer@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 04/27/2012 02:53 AM, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote:
>>  From bb0168d5c85f62f36434956e4728a67d0cc41e55 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
>> From: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki<kamezawa.hiroyu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2012 18:48:07 +0900
>> Subject: [PATCH 3/9] memcg: add res_counter_uncharge_until()
>>
>> At killing res_counter which is a child of other counter,
>> we need to do
>>       res_counter_uncharge(child, xxx)
>>       res_counter_charge(parent, xxx)
>>
>> This is not atomic and wasting cpu. This patch adds
>> res_counter_uncharge_until(). This function's uncharge propagates
>> to ancestors until specified res_counter.
>>
>>       res_counter_uncharge_until(child, parent, xxx)
>>
>> This ops is atomic and more efficient.
>>
>> Originaly-written-by: Frederic Weisbecker<fweisbec@xxxxxxxxx>
>> Signed-off-by: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki<kamezawa.hiroyu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> I have been carrying Frederic's patch itself in my code for a while now.
>
> Why not just use it? What are you doing differently to justify writing a
> patch yourself? It's a bit of credit giving as well

I don't need "charge" part for my purpose and have no justification to add it.
And task-limit cgroup has no justification, either.

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/