From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Balbir Singh Subject: Re: [-mm] Disable the memory controller by default Date: Mon, 07 Apr 2008 17:33:17 +0530 Message-ID: <47FA0D85.201@linux.vnet.ibm.com> References: <20080407115137.24124.59692.sendpatchset@localhost.localdomain> <20080407120340.GB16647@one.firstfloor.org> Reply-To: balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20080407120340.GB16647@one.firstfloor.org> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Andi Kleen Cc: Andrew Morton , YAMAMOTO Takashi , Paul Menage , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, Pavel Emelianov , hugh@veritas.com, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki List-Id: linux-mm.kvack.org Andi Kleen wrote: > On Mon, Apr 07, 2008 at 05:21:37PM +0530, Balbir Singh wrote: >> >> Due to the overhead of the memory controller. The >> memory controller is now disabled by default. This patch changes >> cgroup_disable to cgroup_toggle, so that each controller can decide >> whether it wants to be enabled/disabled by default. >> >> If everyone agrees on this approach and likes it, should we push this >> into 2.6.25? > > First I like the change to make it disabled by default. > > I don't think "toggle" is good semantics for a user visible switch > because that changes the meaning when the kernel default changes > (which it will likely once the current default overhead is fixed) > > It should be rather: cgroup=on/off > The boot control options apply to all controllers and we want to allow controllers to decide whether they should be turned on or off. With sufficient documentation support in Documentation/kernel-parameters.txt, don't you think we can expect this to work as the user intended? -- Warm Regards, Balbir Singh Linux Technology Center IBM, ISTL