Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 19 Jan 2009 14:04:15 +0530 | From | Balbir Singh <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] memcg: update document to mention swapoff should be test. |
| |
* KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> [2009-01-19 16:15:08]:
> On Mon, 19 Jan 2009 12:42:20 +0530 > Balbir Singh <balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote: > > > * KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> [2009-01-19 15:57:48]: > > > > > From: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> > > > > > > Considering recently found problem: > > > memcg-fix-refcnt-handling-at-swapoff.patch > > > > > > It's better to mention about swapoff behavior in memcg_test document. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> > > > --- > > > Documentation/cgroups/memcg_test.txt | 24 ++++++++++++++++++++++-- > > > 1 file changed, 22 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > > > > > Index: mmotm-2.6.29-Jan16/Documentation/cgroups/memcg_test.txt > > > =================================================================== > > > --- mmotm-2.6.29-Jan16.orig/Documentation/cgroups/memcg_test.txt > > > +++ mmotm-2.6.29-Jan16/Documentation/cgroups/memcg_test.txt > > > @@ -1,6 +1,6 @@ > > > Memory Resource Controller(Memcg) Implementation Memo. > > > -Last Updated: 2008/12/15 > > > -Base Kernel Version: based on 2.6.28-rc8-mm. > > > +Last Updated: 2009/1/19 > > > +Base Kernel Version: based on 2.6.29-rc2. > > > > > > Because VM is getting complex (one of reasons is memcg...), memcg's behavior > > > is complex. This is a document for memcg's internal behavior. > > > @@ -340,3 +340,23 @@ Under below explanation, we assume CONFI > > > # mount -t cgroup none /cgroup -t cpuset,memory,cpu,devices > > > > > > and do task move, mkdir, rmdir etc...under this. > > > + > > > + 9.7 swapoff. > > > + Besides management of swap is one of complicated parts of memcg, > > > + call path of swap-in at swapoff is not same as usual swap-in path.. > > > + It's worth to be tested explicitly. > > > + > > > + For example, test like following is good. > > > + (Shell-A) > > > + # mount -t cgroup none /cgroup -t memory > > > + # mkdir /cgroup/test > > > + # echo 40M > /cgroup/test/memory.limit_in_bytes > > > + # echo 0 > /cgroup/test/tasks > > > > 0? shouldn't this be pid? Potentially echo $$ > > > > 0 is handled as $$ in cgroup/tasks file. >
OK, I remember having the 0 discussion for cgroups. Thanks for clarifying. The test looks good, 0 is a bit confusing, since it is a valid pid not visible to user space... but that is already done and closed. Hence,
Acked-by: Balbir Singh <balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
-- Balbir
| |