Pavel Emelyanov wrote:
This allows us two things basically:
Pavel,
Do you have any further updates on this. I think we need a way of being able to
implement reclaim per hierarchy as mentioned earlier. Do you want me to take a
look at it?
--
Warm Regards,
Balbir Singh
YAMAMOTO Takashi wrote:
@@ -36,10 +37,26 @@ int res_counter_charge(struct res_counter *counter,
unsigned long val)
{
int ret;
unsigned long flags;
+struct res_counter *c, *unroll_c;
+
+local_irq_save(flags);
+for (c = counter; c != NULL; c = c-parent) {
+
@@ -36,10 +37,26 @@ int res_counter_charge(struct res_counter *counter,
unsigned long val)
{
int ret;
unsigned long flags;
+ struct res_counter *c, *unroll_c;
+
+ local_irq_save(flags);
+ for (c = counter; c != NULL; c = c-parent) {
+
@@ -36,10 +37,26 @@ int res_counter_charge(struct res_counter *counter,
unsigned long val)
{
int ret;
unsigned long flags;
+ struct res_counter *c, *unroll_c;
+
+ local_irq_save(flags);
+ for (c = counter; c != NULL; c = c-parent) {
+
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
+
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.
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
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 writing the limit.
2.
11 matches
Mail list logo
