From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Tejun Heo Subject: Re: [RFC 02/18] cgroup_pids: track maximum pids Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2016 21:09:31 -0400 Message-ID: <20160719010931.GG3078@mtj.duckdns.org> References: <1465847065-3577-1-git-send-email-toiwoton@gmail.com> <1465847065-3577-3-git-send-email-toiwoton@gmail.com> <20160613211227.GG31708@htj.duckdns.org> <17cb1a37-47b1-dbd4-6835-efad3cf6c12f@gmail.com> <20160613213354.GH31708@htj.duckdns.org> <3b03822f-c5d0-5b84-79c3-edeb8e78e2dd@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Return-path: DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=sender:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=FnwqBWlsldw4SMmyLSDfrUDaGu6Fu3SabTR6+yAsuwA=; b=iViQH8KjlTkoxlL/Asp+/xM8Rci9NNhG4yI4TMIOwkgq/zdDTLGDsHyQi72XidSFlS QWaRg9qj1qCZHKDg/DPaOD3QR5gE3HPpHjwWC/Oa06XEKq0f/WpvdGU5V5KfTSEf2KVX jfdiMxH1s069+wgLlITih5ImniCkk/ulSy8iu0YNApGpocbVJS+KYmPrBc3GM6HvMMeP tKSpGH28elyqJMtI4Q2bZSKLNRbYC7orq22/jVvya+YEOPdMz5tQTzr86vW/svYfyc+1 +4c94EZHVWWfA3Yva1OyRUzwHekbLS0jRE9DchdbbaFQH4nZBQ3Wnvt0wYuUAP8Dtvdj TaEg== Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3b03822f-c5d0-5b84-79c3-edeb8e78e2dd-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> Sender: cgroups-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org List-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: Topi Miettinen Cc: linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, Li Zefan , Johannes Weiner , "open list:CONTROL GROUP (CGROUP)" On Sun, Jul 17, 2016 at 08:11:31PM +0000, Topi Miettinen wrote: > On 06/13/16 21:33, Tejun Heo wrote: > > Hello, > > > > On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 09:29:32PM +0000, Topi Miettinen wrote: > >> I used fork callback as I don't want to lower the watermark in all cases > >> where the charge can be lowered, so I'd update the watermark only when > >> the fork really happens. > > > > I don't think that would make a noticeable difference. That's where > > we decide whether to grant fork or not after all and thus where the > > actual usage is. > > I tried using only charge functions, but then the result was too low. > With fork callback, the result was as expected. Can you please elaborate in more details? Thanks. -- tejun