From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.cz>
To: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
Cc: Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>,
Balbir Singh <bsingharora@gmail.com>,
KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>,
cgroups@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
Hugh Dickins <hughd@google.com>, Ying Han <yinghan@google.com>,
Glauber Costa <glommer@parallels.com>,
Michel Lespinasse <walken@google.com>,
Greg Thelen <gthelen@google.com>
Subject: Re: memcg: softlimit on internal nodes
Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2013 17:27:52 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20130429152752.GD1172@dhcp22.suse.cz> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20130426183741.GA25940@mtj.dyndns.org>
On Fri 26-04-13 11:37:41, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hey,
>
> On Fri, Apr 26, 2013 at 01:51:20PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > Maybe I should have been more explicit about this but _yes I do agree_
> > that a separate limit would work as well. I just do not want to
>
> Heh, the point was more about what we shouldn't be doing, but, yeah,
> it's good that we at least agree on something. :)
>
> > Anyway, I will think about cons and pros of the new limit. I think we
> > shouldn't block the first 3 patches in the series which keep the current
> > semantic and just change the internals to do the same thing. Do you
> > agree?
>
> As the merge window is coming right up, if it isn't something super
> urgent, can we please hold it off until after the merge window? It
> would be really great if we can pin down the semantics of the knob
> before doing anything.
I think that merging it into 3.10 would be too ambitious but I think
this core code cleanup makes sense for future discussions so I would
like to post it for -mm tree at least. The sooner it will be the better
IMHO.
> Please. I'll think / study more about it in the coming weeks.
>
> Thanks.
>
> --
> tejun
--
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: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-04-29 15:27 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 46+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2013-04-20 0:26 Tejun Heo
2013-04-20 0:42 ` Tejun Heo
2013-04-20 3:35 ` Greg Thelen
2013-04-21 1:53 ` Tejun Heo
2013-04-20 3:16 ` Michal Hocko
2013-04-21 2:23 ` Tejun Heo
2013-04-21 8:55 ` Michel Lespinasse
2013-04-22 4:24 ` Tejun Heo
2013-04-22 7:14 ` Michel Lespinasse
2013-04-22 14:48 ` Tejun Heo
2013-04-22 15:37 ` Michal Hocko
2013-04-22 15:46 ` Tejun Heo
2013-04-22 15:54 ` Michal Hocko
2013-04-22 16:01 ` Tejun Heo
2013-04-23 9:58 ` Michel Lespinasse
2013-04-23 10:17 ` Glauber Costa
2013-04-23 11:40 ` Michal Hocko
2013-04-23 11:54 ` Glauber Costa
2013-04-23 12:51 ` Michel Lespinasse
2013-04-23 13:06 ` Michal Hocko
2013-04-23 13:13 ` Glauber Costa
2013-04-23 13:28 ` Michal Hocko
2013-04-23 11:32 ` Michal Hocko
2013-04-23 12:45 ` Michel Lespinasse
2013-04-23 12:59 ` Michal Hocko
2013-04-23 12:51 ` Michal Hocko
2013-04-21 12:46 ` Michal Hocko
2013-04-22 4:39 ` Tejun Heo
2013-04-22 15:19 ` Michal Hocko
2013-04-22 15:57 ` Tejun Heo
2013-04-22 15:57 ` Tejun Heo
2013-04-22 16:20 ` Michal Hocko
2013-04-22 18:30 ` Tejun Heo
2013-04-23 9:29 ` Michal Hocko
2013-04-23 17:09 ` Tejun Heo
2013-04-26 11:51 ` Michal Hocko
2013-04-26 18:37 ` Tejun Heo
2013-04-29 15:27 ` Michal Hocko [this message]
2013-04-23 9:33 ` [RFC v2 0/4] soft limit rework Michal Hocko
2013-04-23 9:33 ` [RFC v2 1/4] memcg: integrate soft reclaim tighter with zone shrinking code Michal Hocko
2013-04-23 9:33 ` [RFC v2 2/4] memcg: Get rid of soft-limit tree infrastructure Michal Hocko
2013-04-23 9:33 ` [RFC v2 3/4] vmscan, memcg: Do softlimit reclaim also for targeted reclaim Michal Hocko
2013-04-23 9:33 ` [RFC v2 4/4] memcg: Ignore soft limit until it is explicitly specified Michal Hocko
2013-04-24 21:45 ` memcg: softlimit on internal nodes Johannes Weiner
2013-04-25 0:33 ` Tejun Heo
2013-04-29 18:39 ` Johannes Weiner
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20130429152752.GD1172@dhcp22.suse.cz \
--to=mhocko@suse.cz \
--cc=bsingharora@gmail.com \
--cc=cgroups@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=glommer@parallels.com \
--cc=gthelen@google.com \
--cc=hannes@cmpxchg.org \
--cc=hughd@google.com \
--cc=kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=tj@kernel.org \
--cc=walken@google.com \
--cc=yinghan@google.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox