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

[kamezawa . hiroyu]

----- Original Message -----

>kamezawa.hiroyu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> 
>>>> I think when I did all in memcg, someone will comment that "why do that
>>>> all in memcg ? please implement generic one to avoid code duplication"
>>> Hm... But we're choosing between
>>>
>>> sys_write->xxx_cgroup_write->res_counter_set_limit->xxx_cgroup_call
>>>
>>> and
>>>
>>> sys_write->xxx_cgroup_write->res_counter_set_limit
>>>                           ->xxx_cgroup_call
>>>
>>> With the sizeof(void *)-bytes difference in res_counter, nNo?
>>>
>> I can't catch what you mean. What is res_counter_set_limit here ?
>
>It's res_counter_resize_limit from your patch, sorry for the confusion.
>
>> (my patche's ?) and what is sizeof(void *)-bytes ?
>
>I meant, that we have to add 4 bytes (8 on 64-bit arches) on the
>struct res_counter to store the pointer on the res_counter_ops.
>
Okay, maye all you want is "don't increase the size of res_counter"

>> 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.
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/