Re: [PATCH] remove memory.limit v.s. memsw.limit comparison.

[Balbir Singh <balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com>]

* KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> [2009-06-04 14:10:43]:

> From: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>
> 
> Removes memory.limit < memsw.limit at setting limit check completely.
> 
> The limitation "memory.limit <= memsw.limit" was added just because
> it seems sane ...if memory.limit > memsw.limit, only memsw.limit works.
> 
> But To implement this limitation, we needed to use private mutex and make
> the code a bit complated.
> As Nishimura pointed out, in real world, there are people who only want
> to use memsw.limit.
> 
> Then, this patch removes the check. user-land library or middleware can check
> this in userland easily if this really concerns.
> 
> And this is a good change to charge-and-reclaim.
> 
> Now, memory.limit is always checked before memsw.limit
> and it may do swap-out. But, if memory.limit == memsw.limit, swap-out is
> finally no help and hits memsw.limit again. So, let's allow the condition
> memory.limit > memsw.limit. Then we can skip unnecesary swap-out.
> 
> Signed-off-by: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>

We can't change behaviour this way without breaking userspace scripts,
API and code. What does it mean for people already using these
features? Does it break their workflow?

-- 
	Balbir

--
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: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>