From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail202.messagelabs.com (mail202.messagelabs.com [216.82.254.227]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8526D6B004D for ; Thu, 4 Jun 2009 00:35:01 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 4 Jun 2009 13:31:38 +0900 From: Daisuke Nishimura Subject: Re: [PATCH mmotm 2/2] memcg: allow mem.limit bigger than memsw.limit iff unlimited Message-Id: <20090604133138.d8286db9.nishimura@mxp.nes.nec.co.jp> In-Reply-To: <20090603174641.445e3012.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> References: <20090603114518.301cef4d.nishimura@mxp.nes.nec.co.jp> <20090603115027.80f9169b.nishimura@mxp.nes.nec.co.jp> <20090603125228.368ecaf7.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> <20090603140102.72b04b6f.nishimura@mxp.nes.nec.co.jp> <20090603174641.445e3012.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org To: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki Cc: LKML , linux-mm , Andrew Morton , Balbir Singh , Li Zefan , Paul Menage , Daisuke Nishimura List-ID: On Wed, 3 Jun 2009 17:46:41 +0900, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote: > On Wed, 3 Jun 2009 14:01:02 +0900 > Daisuke Nishimura wrote: > > > On Wed, 3 Jun 2009 12:52:28 +0900, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote: > > > On Wed, 3 Jun 2009 11:50:27 +0900 > > > Daisuke Nishimura wrote: > > > > > > > Now users cannot set mem.limit bigger than memsw.limit. > > > > This patch allows mem.limit bigger than memsw.limit iff mem.limit==unlimited. > > > > > > > > By this, users can set memsw.limit without setting mem.limit. > > > > I think it's usefull if users want to limit memsw only. > > > > They must set mem.limit first and memsw.limit to the same value now for this purpose. > > > > They can save the first step by this patch. > > > > > > > > > > I don't like this. No benefits to users. > > > The user should know when they set memsw.limit they have to set memory.limit. > > > This just complicates things. > > > > > Hmm, I think there is a user who cares only limitting logical memory(mem+swap), > > not physical memory, and wants kswapd to reclaim physical memory when congested. > > At least, I'm a such user. > > > > Do you disagree even if I add a file like "memory.allow_limit_memsw_only" ? > > > > How about removing memory.limit < memsw.limit condition completely ? > It might be good idea. IMHO, there is no critical reason it must be checked by kernel, but I'm not sure. All I wanted to do was "let users who cares only about memsw.limit ignore mem.limit completely". That's why, I treated only the "unlimited"(not set mem.limit) case as special. But, as you say, there is no reason it must be implemented in kernel. (We can use a middle-ware or something.) I'll drop this and consider more. Thanks, Daisuke Nishimura. -- 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