From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from psmtp.com (na3sys010amx102.postini.com [74.125.245.102]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 74D376B0044 for ; Thu, 27 Sep 2012 08:24:22 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <506444A7.5060303@parallels.com> Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2012 16:20:55 +0400 From: Glauber Costa MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 04/13] kmem accounting basic infrastructure 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> <20120927121558.GB29104@dhcp22.suse.cz> In-Reply-To: <20120927121558.GB29104@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: Tejun Heo , 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 09/27/2012 04:15 PM, Michal Hocko wrote: > 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? > How exactly would that work? AFAIK, we have a single memcg root, we can't have multiple memcg hierarchies in a system. Am I missing something? -- 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