Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 09 Jul 2012 13:43:23 +0900 | From | Kamezawa Hiroyuki <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] mm/memcg: return -EBUSY when oom-kill-disable modified and memcg use_hierarchy, has children |
| |
(2012/07/05 19:55), Wanpeng Li wrote: > From: Wanpeng Li <liwp@linux.vnet.ibm.com> > > When oom-kill-disable modified by the user and current memcg use_hierarchy, > the change can occur, provided the current memcg has no children. If it > has children, return -EBUSY is enough. > > Signed-off-by: Wanpeng Li <liwp.linux@gmail.com>
I'm sorry what is the point ? You think -EBUSY should be returned in this case rather than -EINVAl ? Then, why ?
> --- > mm/memcontrol.c | 7 +++++-- > 1 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/mm/memcontrol.c b/mm/memcontrol.c > index 63e36e7..4b64fe0 100644 > --- a/mm/memcontrol.c > +++ b/mm/memcontrol.c > @@ -4521,11 +4521,14 @@ static int mem_cgroup_oom_control_write(struct cgroup *cgrp, > > cgroup_lock(); > /* oom-kill-disable is a flag for subhierarchy. */ > - if ((parent->use_hierarchy) || > - (memcg->use_hierarchy && !list_empty(&cgrp->children))) { > + if (parent->use_hierarchy) { > cgroup_unlock(); > return -EINVAL; > + } else if (memcg->use_hierarchy && !list_empty(&cgrp->children)) { > + cgroup_unlock(); > + return -EBUSY; > } > + > memcg->oom_kill_disable = val; > if (!val) > memcg_oom_recover(memcg); >
| |