On Mon, Apr 28 2014, Roman Gushchin <kl...@yandex-team.ru> wrote:
> 28.04.2014, 16:27, "Michal Hocko" <mho...@suse.cz>:
>> The series is based on top of the current mmotm tree. Once the series
>> gets accepted I will post a patch which will mark the soft limit as
>> deprecated with a note that it will be eventually dropped. Let me know
>> if you would prefer to have such a patch a part of the series.
>>
>> Thoughts?
>
>
> Looks good to me.
>
> The only question is: are there any ideas how the hierarchy support
> will be used in this case in practice?
> Will someone set low limit for non-leaf cgroups? Why?
>
> Thanks,
> Roman
I imagine that a hosting service may want to give X MB to a top level
memcg (/a) with sub-jobs (/a/b, /a/c) which may(not) have their own
low-limits.
Examples:
case_1) only set low limit on /a. /a/b and /a/c may overcommit /a's
memory (b.limit_in_bytes + c.limit_in_bytes > a.limit_in_bytes).
case_2) low limits on all memcg. But not overcommitting low_limits
(b.low_limit_in_in_bytes + c.low_limit_in_in_bytes <=
a.low_limit_in_in_bytes).
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
