Pavel Emelyanov wrote:
Balbir Singh wrote:
Pavel Emelyanov wrote:
This allows us two things basically:
1. If the subgroup has the limit higher than its parent has
then the one will get more memory than allowed.
But should we allow such configuration? I suspect that we should catch such
Balbir Singh wrote:
Pavel Emelyanov wrote:
This allows us two things basically:
1. If the subgroup has the limit higher than its parent has
then the one will get more memory than allowed.
But should we allow such configuration? I suspect that we should catch such
things at the time of
Balbir Singh wrote:
Pavel Emelyanov wrote:
Balbir Singh wrote:
Pavel Emelyanov wrote:
This allows us two things basically:
1. If the subgroup has the limit higher than its parent has
then the one will get more memory than allowed.
But should we allow such configuration? I suspect that
On Tue, Mar 11, 2008 at 1:15 AM, Pavel Emelyanov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
mem_couter_0
+ -- swap_counter_0
+ -- mem_counter_1
| + -- swap_counter_1
| + -- mem_counter_11
| | + -- swap_counter_11
| + -- mem_counter_12
| + -- swap_counter_12
+
KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote:
On Fri, 07 Mar 2008 18:30:55 +0300
Pavel Emelyanov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This is a very usefull feature. E.g. one may set the
limit to unlimited value and check for the memory
requirements of a new container.
Hm, I like this. Could you add a method to reset
On Tue, 11 Mar 2008 14:46:58 +0530
Balbir Singh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Paul Menage wrote:
On Tue, Mar 11, 2008 at 2:13 AM, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
or remove all relationship among counters of *different* type of
resources.
user-land-daemon will do enough jobs.
Li Zefan wrote:
We can write whatever to memory.force_empty:
echo 999 memory.force_empty
echo wow memory.force_empty
This is odd, so let's make '1' to be the only valid value.
I suspect as long as there is no unreasonable side-effect, writing 999 or wow
should be OK.
--
This function can be used to assign the value of a resource counter member.
Signed-off-by: Li Zefan [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
include/linux/res_counter.h |9 ++---
kernel/res_counter.c|9 +
2 files changed, 15 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git
KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote:
On Tue, 11 Mar 2008 19:09:02 +0900
Li Zefan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Allow memory.failcnt to be reset to 0:
echo 0 memory.failcnt
And '0' is the only valid value.
Can't this be generic resource counter function ?
I was about to suggest a generic
On Tue, 11 Mar 2008 19:08:39 +0900
Li Zefan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This function can be used to assign the value of a resource counter member.
Why don't you make this function to do the same work as res_counter_write() ?
Thanks,
-Kame
Signed-off-by: Li Zefan [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
@@ -122,14 +122,26 @@ static void free_pidmap(struct upid *upi
atomic_inc(map-nr_free);
}
-static int alloc_pidmap(struct pid_namespace *pid_ns)
+static int alloc_pidmap(struct pid_namespace *pid_ns, struct pid_list *pid_l,
+ int level)
Pavel Emelyanov wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
@@ -122,14 +122,26 @@ static void free_pidmap(struct upid *upi
atomic_inc(map-nr_free);
}
-static int alloc_pidmap(struct pid_namespace *pid_ns)
+static int alloc_pidmap(struct pid_namespace *pid_ns, struct pid_list *pid_l,
+
Nadia Derbey wrote:
Pavel Emelyanov wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
@@ -122,14 +122,26 @@ static void free_pidmap(struct upid *upi
atomic_inc(map-nr_free);
}
-static int alloc_pidmap(struct pid_namespace *pid_ns)
+static int alloc_pidmap(struct pid_namespace *pid_ns, struct pid_list
Pavel Emelyanov wrote:
Nadia Derbey wrote:
Pavel Emelyanov wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
@@ -122,14 +122,26 @@ static void free_pidmap(struct upid *upi
atomic_inc(map-nr_free);
}
-static int alloc_pidmap(struct pid_namespace *pid_ns)
+static int alloc_pidmap(struct pid_namespace
Paul Menage wrote:
On Tue, Mar 11, 2008 at 2:16 AM, Balbir Singh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Paul Menage wrote:
On Tue, Mar 11, 2008 at 2:13 AM, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
or remove all relationship among counters of *different* type of
resources.
user-land-daemon
On Tue, Mar 11, 2008 at 8:21 AM, Pavel Emelyanov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If the patch with max_usage for res_counter will be accepted we'll have
two :) files, that a event-triggers essentially, i.e. they don't care
what the user actually write to then, but are interested in the writing
by
Paul Menage wrote:
On Tue, Mar 11, 2008 at 9:13 AM, Pavel Emelyanov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- a/include/linux/cgroup.h
+++ b/include/linux/cgroup.h
@@ -243,7 +243,7 @@ struct cftype {
*/
int (*write_s64) (struct cgroup *cgrp, struct cftype *cft, s64 val);
-
Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
Quoting Pavel Emelyanov ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
Nadia Derbey wrote:
Pavel Emelyanov wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
@@ -122,14 +122,26 @@ static void free_pidmap(struct upid *upi
atomic_inc(map-nr_free);
}
-static int alloc_pidmap(struct pid_namespace *pid_ns)
Quoting Pavel Emelyanov ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
Quoting Pavel Emelyanov ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
Nadia Derbey wrote:
Pavel Emelyanov wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
@@ -122,14 +122,26 @@ static void free_pidmap(struct upid *upi
atomic_inc(map-nr_free);
}
19 matches
Mail list logo
