From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from psmtp.com (na3sys010amx203.postini.com [74.125.245.203]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 170FA6B005D for ; Wed, 15 Aug 2012 07:12:31 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <1345029143.2976.41.camel@dabdike.int.hansenpartnership.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 04/11] kmem accounting basic infrastructure From: James Bottomley Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2012 12:12:23 +0100 In-Reply-To: <502B6D03.1080804@parallels.com> References: <1344517279-30646-1-git-send-email-glommer@parallels.com> <1344517279-30646-5-git-send-email-glommer@parallels.com> <20120814162144.GC6905@dhcp22.suse.cz> <502B6D03.1080804@parallels.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mime-Version: 1.0 Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Glauber Costa Cc: Michal Hocko , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, cgroups@vger.kernel.org, devel@openvz.org, Johannes Weiner , Andrew Morton , kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com, Christoph Lameter , David Rientjes , Pekka Enberg On Wed, 2012-08-15 at 13:33 +0400, Glauber Costa wrote: > > This can > > be quite confusing. I am still not sure whether we should mix the two > > things together. If somebody wants to limit the kernel memory he has to > > touch the other limit anyway. Do you have a strong reason to mix the > > user and kernel counters? > > This is funny, because the first opposition I found to this work was > "Why would anyone want to limit it separately?" =p > > It seems that a quite common use case is to have a container with a > unified view of "memory" that it can use the way he likes, be it with > kernel memory, or user memory. I believe those people would be happy to > just silently account kernel memory to user memory, or at the most have > a switch to enable it. > > What gets clear from this back and forth, is that there are people > interested in both use cases. Haven't we already had this discussion during the Prague get together? We discussed the use cases and finally agreed to separate accounting for k and then k+u mem because that satisfies both the Google and Parallels cases. No-one was overjoyed by k and k+u but no-one had a better suggestion ... is there a better way of doing this that everyone can agree to? We do need to get this nailed down because it's the foundation of the patch series. James -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org