From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from psmtp.com (na3sys010amx116.postini.com [74.125.245.116]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 519D06B005A for ; Thu, 27 Sep 2012 08:16:01 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2012 14:15:58 +0200 From: Michal Hocko Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 04/13] kmem accounting basic infrastructure Message-ID: <20120927121558.GB29104@dhcp22.suse.cz> References: <50635F46.7000700@parallels.com> <20120926201629.GB20342@google.com> <50637298.2090904@parallels.com> <20120926221046.GA10453@mtj.dyndns.org> <506381B2.2060806@parallels.com> <20120926224235.GB10453@mtj.dyndns.org> <50638793.7060806@parallels.com> <20120926230807.GC10453@mtj.dyndns.org> <50638DBB.4000002@parallels.com> <20120926233334.GD10453@mtj.dyndns.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20120926233334.GD10453@mtj.dyndns.org> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Tejun Heo Cc: Glauber Costa , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, cgroups@vger.kernel.org, kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com, devel@openvz.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, Suleiman Souhlal , Frederic Weisbecker , Mel Gorman , David Rientjes , Johannes Weiner On Wed 26-09-12 16:33:34, Tejun Heo wrote: [...] > > > So, this seems properly crazy to me at the similar level of > > > use_hierarchy fiasco. I'm gonna NACK on this. > > > > As I said: all use cases I particularly care about are covered by a > > global switch. > > > > I am laying down my views because I really believe they make more sense. > > But at some point, of course, I'll shut up if I believe I am a lone voice. > > > > I believe it should still be good to hear from mhocko and kame, but from > > your point of view, would all the rest, plus the introduction of a > > global switch make it acceptable to you? > > The only thing I'm whining about is per-node switch + silently > ignoring past accounting, so if those two are solved, I think I'm > pretty happy with the rest. I think that per-group "switch" is not nice as well but if we make it hierarchy specific (which I am proposing for quite some time) and do not let enable accounting for a group with tasks then we get both flexibility and reasonable semantic. A global switch sounds too coars to me and it really not necessary. Would this work with you? -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs -- 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