From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.8 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 28458C11D05 for ; Thu, 20 Feb 2020 16:05:43 +0000 (UTC) Received: from kanga.kvack.org (kanga.kvack.org [205.233.56.17]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D103B2465D for ; Thu, 20 Feb 2020 16:05:42 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=shutemov-name.20150623.gappssmtp.com header.i=@shutemov-name.20150623.gappssmtp.com header.b="1KXcRmIx" DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org D103B2465D Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=shutemov.name Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id 737426B0003; Thu, 20 Feb 2020 11:05:42 -0500 (EST) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id 6E7006B0008; Thu, 20 Feb 2020 11:05:42 -0500 (EST) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id 5D5446B000A; Thu, 20 Feb 2020 11:05:42 -0500 (EST) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from forelay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0089.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.89]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3F1CD6B0003 for ; Thu, 20 Feb 2020 11:05:42 -0500 (EST) Received: from smtpin14.hostedemail.com (10.5.19.251.rfc1918.com [10.5.19.251]) by forelay01.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A2167180AD837 for ; Thu, 20 Feb 2020 16:05:41 +0000 (UTC) X-FDA: 76510980882.14.move54_6bcb478259414 X-HE-Tag: move54_6bcb478259414 X-Filterd-Recvd-Size: 3690 Received: from mail-lf1-f51.google.com (mail-lf1-f51.google.com [209.85.167.51]) by imf32.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Thu, 20 Feb 2020 16:05:40 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-lf1-f51.google.com with SMTP id m30so3514750lfp.8 for ; Thu, 20 Feb 2020 08:05:40 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=shutemov-name.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-disposition:in-reply-to; bh=DFTc+wSzBNGB+eI2Z9BmxAF+WuTC/vFKz41xnC3lzTo=; b=1KXcRmIxIyRN1k6cPH0cHtkUh3rBPHuKf+cj/Opt1BBMt6KqwN/SF3SKqumlpgwNAZ bcKz2V/r0DwoTQ4zywCQXnNCrqVn2+MzcaGf8YxBfe5Lyx6ZHnZ2K4uIvxJa2oMn5rTw nq1n4vLDf0IBL3lOhkT1vuuRtHUT6S5HBhcaam/J2sZtpHmpOrZ1qbRd3pjpAgbANuAU HpTdZfZppVwpJvGSnF7uB2yOFsT/fdKwSxLJR6WsUkr5mnd4Dv/6uX4OUHQAe1t0TJDw fLFjBUkeg0WQC9+6UuHQuOKaIe99CB8OZotpknsUgy8KraG69k/bSmfnHm3+sQd5/abF atyQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references :mime-version:content-disposition:in-reply-to; bh=DFTc+wSzBNGB+eI2Z9BmxAF+WuTC/vFKz41xnC3lzTo=; b=tuChK8i90PwUIm8HEbMoP0Psxiodg0qD1Xi7wt398SgfPbFzOAEA2Qa6u7LP3uz+nF VcjiyUOTYvP5eTfslskxagt4SY/OkyVTs/Slm5AEEAD145u6t+BSyG3Ln+qEkJQg+GjG 8b8dRrNBj/LSIKetcAPzn2c+nMpUbDowKUSuqstPUx0JmerkxEgYRbQzVgWaGw8IJBYd byTsjJxMjVTJ0/Y5qrt06JVGvrUtIr9mUgp0ETWdg1Otd5r3lk3gijU8Hd2NfvChqI07 JPE+JEg1dXtA/5+Hj9SIUDvLlsY05jV3vgBMhtiOKaUaTPcBDNMr8PBjz6XcfuyLx1xU cosw== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAV1LHSZqdvEFpgqVqEOPkHDZlNWxfLfdPvJgV33VkcG6Yp6whmH TORQFKbl02ns+PD7nheFyGLxww== X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqyIfDhL+tS+pe4e68fTLu/dTyocRjheIe/x4aCjX1XXWAZJ7ZOURBvrDHICqL5V9+Vvjb8MNg== X-Received: by 2002:ac2:57cc:: with SMTP id k12mr17080056lfo.36.1582214738731; Thu, 20 Feb 2020 08:05:38 -0800 (PST) Received: from box.localdomain ([86.57.175.117]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id x29sm2504126lfg.45.2020.02.20.08.05.35 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Thu, 20 Feb 2020 08:05:36 -0800 (PST) Received: by box.localdomain (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 78FED100FBB; Thu, 20 Feb 2020 19:06:04 +0300 (+03) Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2020 19:06:04 +0300 From: "Kirill A. Shutemov" To: Michal Hocko Cc: Tim Chen , lsf-pc@lists.linux-foundation.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, Dave Hansen , Dan Williams , Huang Ying Subject: Re: [Lsf-pc] [LSF/MM TOPIC] Memory cgroups, whether you like it or not Message-ID: <20200220160604.ak33n3hrqouyiuyv@box> References: <20200214104541.GT31689@dhcp22.suse.cz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20200214104541.GT31689@dhcp22.suse.cz> X-Bogosity: Ham, tests=bogofilter, spamicity=0.000000, version=1.2.4 Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Precedence: bulk X-Loop: owner-majordomo@kvack.org List-ID: On Fri, Feb 14, 2020 at 11:45:41AM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote: > On Wed 05-02-20 10:34:57, Tim Chen wrote: > > There is existing infrastructure for memory soft limit per cgroup we > > can leverage to implement such a scheme. We'll like to find out if this > > approach makes sense for people working on systems with multiple memory tiers. > > Soft limit is dead. Michal, could you remind what the deal with soft limit? Why is it dead? -- Kirill A. Shutemov