On 09/11/2013 08:07 PM, Lennart Poettering wrote: > On Wed, 11.09.13 09:18, Gao feng ([email protected]) wrote: > >>>> The SYSTEMD.CGROUP(5) said if MemoryLimit=bytes is set for unit, it >>>> implies MemeoryAccounting=true for this unit. >>>> >>>> But seems systemd didn't implement this hint. CPUShares & BlockIO have >>>> the same problem, this is a shortage? patch needed? >>> >>> >>> The logic for this is in src/core/cgroup.c's cgroup_context_get_mask() >>> call, which will determine to which cgroup controllers to add a unit >>> to. Note that setting MemoryLimit= will not actually propagate to the >>> boolean exposed in MemoryAccounting=, it will just have the same effect >>> as if it was set... >>> >> >> Maybe we should also report "MemoryAccounting=yes" in cgroup_context_dump >> if we set MemoryLimit. > > What I don't really like about this is that we allow MemoryLimit to be > altered dynamically, which would then need to influence > MemoryAccounting= dynamically too. WHich means that we would have to > shadow that field so that we can revert to the originally configured > value. Also, it would have very weird effects if people then try to > dynamically unset MemoryAccounting which would either possibly be a NOP > or would have the effect of resseting MemoryLimit... If you follow what > I mean. >
make sense, thanks for your explanation :) _______________________________________________ systemd-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
