Paul M wrote:
> Cpusets could make use of this too, since
> it has to traverse hierarchies sometimes.
Yeah - I suppose cpusets could use it, though
it's not critical. A fair bit of work already
went into cpusets so that it would not need to
traverse this hierarchy on any critical code path,
or wh
On Sat, 19 Apr 2008 14:04:00 +0530
Balbir Singh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> YAMAMOTO Takashi wrote:
> >> - spin_lock_irqsave(&counter->lock, flags);
> >> - ret = res_counter_charge_locked(counter, val);
> >> - spin_unlock_irqrestore(&counter->lock, flags);
> >> + *limit_exceeded_at = NULL;
>
Paul Menage wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 18, 2008 at 10:35 PM, Balbir Singh
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> 1. We need to hold cgroup_mutex while walking through the children
>>in reclaim. We need to figure out the best way to do so. Should
>>cgroups provide a helper function/macro for it?
>
> Th
Pavel Emelyanov wrote:
>
> Are you going to split this patch? As is it looks rather huge :)
>
Sure
>> TODO's/Open Questions
>>
>> 1. We need to hold cgroup_mutex while walking through the children
>>in reclaim. We need to figure out the best way to do so. Should
>>cgroups provide a help
