Re: [RFC 02/18] cgroup_pids: track maximum pids
From: Tejun Heo
Date: Mon Jul 18 2016 - 21:09:39 EST
On Sun, Jul 17, 2016 at 08:11:31PM +0000, Topi Miettinen wrote:
> On 06/13/16 21:33, Tejun Heo wrote:
> > Hello,
> > On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 09:29:32PM +0000, Topi Miettinen wrote:
> >> I used fork callback as I don't want to lower the watermark in all cases
> >> where the charge can be lowered, so I'd update the watermark only when
> >> the fork really happens.
> > I don't think that would make a noticeable difference. That's where
> > we decide whether to grant fork or not after all and thus where the
> > actual usage is.
> I tried using only charge functions, but then the result was too low.
> With fork callback, the result was as expected.
Can you please elaborate in more details?