From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail203.messagelabs.com (mail203.messagelabs.com [216.82.254.243]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CDEDC6B0026 for ; Sun, 8 May 2011 23:24:23 -0400 (EDT) Received: from m4.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (unknown [10.0.50.74]) by fgwmail5.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9AB4F3EE0C7 for ; Mon, 9 May 2011 12:24:18 +0900 (JST) Received: from smail (m4 [127.0.0.1]) by outgoing.m4.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 806B645DE4E for ; Mon, 9 May 2011 12:24:18 +0900 (JST) Received: from s4.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (s4.gw.fujitsu.co.jp [10.0.50.94]) by m4.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6C09645DE4F for ; Mon, 9 May 2011 12:24:18 +0900 (JST) Received: from s4.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by s4.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 610791DB803E for ; Mon, 9 May 2011 12:24:18 +0900 (JST) Received: from m106.s.css.fujitsu.com (m106.s.css.fujitsu.com [10.240.81.146]) by s4.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 29A7E1DB802F for ; Mon, 9 May 2011 12:24:18 +0900 (JST) From: KOSAKI Motohiro Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/7] memcg: add high/low watermark to res_counter In-Reply-To: <20110504085533.GB1375@tiehlicka.suse.cz> References: <20110504085533.GB1375@tiehlicka.suse.cz> Message-Id: <20110509122601.3AD6.A69D9226@jp.fujitsu.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Mon, 9 May 2011 12:24:16 +0900 (JST) Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Michal Hocko Cc: kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki , Ying Han , "linux-mm@kvack.org" , "balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com" , "nishimura@mxp.nes.nec.co.jp" , "akpm@linux-foundation.org" , Johannes Weiner , "minchan.kim@gmail.com" > On Wed 04-05-11 12:55:19, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote: > > >> Ah, right. So, do you have an alternative idea? > > > > > > Why cannot we just keep the global reclaim semantic and make it free > > > memory (hard_limit - usage_in_bytes) based with low limit as the trigger > > > for reclaiming? > > > > Because it's not free memory. > > In some sense it is because it defines the available memory for a group. > > > the cgroup doesn't reach a limit. but.... > > Same way how we do not get down to no free memory (due to reserves > etc.). Or am I missing something. Of cource, it's possible. The only two problem are 1) need much much trivial rewrite exist code and 2) naming issue (it's not _free_). So, I'm going away from this discussion. ;-) I don't have strong opinion this. I only wrote the current decision reason. I don't dislike your idea too. Thanks. -- 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/ . Fight unfair telecom internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/ Don't email: email@kvack.org