From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from psmtp.com (na3sys010amx130.postini.com [74.125.245.130]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 39A5D6B005D for ; Tue, 21 Aug 2012 06:04:37 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <50335C74.4000803@parallels.com> Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2012 14:01:24 +0400 From: Glauber Costa MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 09/11] memcg: propagate kmem limiting information to children References: <1344517279-30646-1-git-send-email-glommer@parallels.com> <1344517279-30646-10-git-send-email-glommer@parallels.com> <20120817090005.GC18600@dhcp22.suse.cz> <502E0BC3.8090204@parallels.com> <20120817093504.GE18600@dhcp22.suse.cz> <502E17C4.7060204@parallels.com> <20120817103550.GF18600@dhcp22.suse.cz> <502E1E90.1080805@parallels.com> <20120821075430.GA19797@dhcp22.suse.cz> <50335341.6010400@parallels.com> <20120821100007.GE19797@dhcp22.suse.cz> In-Reply-To: <20120821100007.GE19797@dhcp22.suse.cz> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Michal Hocko Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, cgroups@vger.kernel.org, devel@openvz.org, Johannes Weiner , Andrew Morton , kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com, Christoph Lameter , David Rientjes , Pekka Enberg , Pekka Enberg , Suleiman Souhlal On 08/21/2012 02:00 PM, Michal Hocko wrote: > On Tue 21-08-12 13:22:09, Glauber Costa wrote: >> On 08/21/2012 11:54 AM, Michal Hocko wrote: > [...] >>> But maybe you have a good use case for that? >>> >> Honestly, I don't. For my particular use case, this would be always on, >> and end of story. I was operating under the belief that being able to >> say "Oh, I regret", and then turning it off would be beneficial, even at >> the expense of the - self contained - complication. >> >> For the general sanity of the interface, it is also a bit simpler to say >> "if kmem is unlimited, x happens", which is a verifiable statement, than >> to have a statement that is dependent on past history. > > OK, fair point. We shouldn't rely on the history. Maybe > memory.kmem.limit_in_bytes could return some special value like -1 in > such a case? > Way I see it, this is simplifying the code at the expense of complicating the interface. >> But all of those need of course, as you pointed out, to be traded off >> by the code complexity. >> >> I am fine with either, I just need a clear sign from you guys so I don't >> keep deimplementing and reimplementing this forever. > > I would be for make it simple now and go with additional features later > when there is a demand for them. Maybe we will have runtimg switch for > user memory accounting as well one day. > Since this would change a then established behavior, the same discussions about compatibility we ever get to will rise. It is a pain we'd better avoid if we can. > But let's see what others think? > Absolutely. Hello others, what do you think ? -- 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