KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote:
> I used memrlimit cgroup at the first time.
>
> May I ask a question about memrlimit cgroup ?
>
> In following
> ==
> static void memrlimit_cgroup_move_task(struct cgroup_subsys *ss,
> struct cgroup *cgrp,
> struct cgroup *old_cgrp,
> struct task_struct *p)
> {
> struct mm_struct *mm;
> struct memrlimit_cgroup *memrcg, *old_memrcg;
>
> <snip>
> if (res_counter_charge(&memrcg->as_res, (mm->total_vm << PAGE_SHIFT)))
> goto out;
> res_counter_uncharge(&old_memrcg->as_res, (mm->total_vm <<
> PAGE_SHIFT));
> ==
> This is a callback for task_attach(). and this never fails.
>
> What happens when the moved task, which move-of-charge fails, exits ?
>
Good question - I am working on this, some of the logic should move to
can_attach(). I'll try and experiment with it and send out a fix.
> ==
> % mkdir /dev/cgroup/memrlimit/group_01
> % mkdir /dev/cgroup/memrlimit/group_02
> % echo 1G > /dev/cgroup/memrlimit/group_01/memrlimit.limit_in_bytes
> % echo 0 > /dev/cgroup/memrlimit/group_02/memrlimit.limit_in_bytes
> % echo $$ > /dev/cgroup/memrlimit/group_01/tasks
> % echo $$ > /dev/cgroup/memrlimit/group_02/tasks
> % exit
> == you'll see WARNING ==
>
> I think the charge of the new group goes to minus. right ?
> (and old group's charge never goes down.)
> I don't think this is "no problem".
>
> What kind of patch is necessary to fix this ?
> task_attach() should be able to fail in future ?
>
> I'm sorry if I misunderstand something or this is already in TODO list.
>
It's already on the TODO list. Thanks for keeping me reminded about it.
--
Warm Regards,
Balbir Singh
Linux Technology Center
IBM, ISTL
_______________________________________________
Containers mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
_______________________________________________
Devel mailing list
Devel@openvz.org
https://openvz.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
