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=-18.2 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIMWL_WL_MED, DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, INCLUDES_CR_TRAILER,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL autolearn=ham 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 C689EC56201 for ; Wed, 18 Nov 2020 19:54:28 +0000 (UTC) Received: from kanga.kvack.org (kanga.kvack.org [205.233.56.17]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 290B0246BC for ; Wed, 18 Nov 2020 19:54:28 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=google.com header.i=@google.com header.b="WZQ6YW8w" DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 290B0246BC Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=reject dis=none) header.from=google.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id 9BCE06B006C; Wed, 18 Nov 2020 14:54:27 -0500 (EST) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id 96B9D6B006E; Wed, 18 Nov 2020 14:54:27 -0500 (EST) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id 8A9436B0070; Wed, 18 Nov 2020 14:54:27 -0500 (EST) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from forelay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0067.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.67]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5D8636B006C for ; Wed, 18 Nov 2020 14:54:27 -0500 (EST) Received: from smtpin11.hostedemail.com (10.5.19.251.rfc1918.com [10.5.19.251]) by forelay05.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0AC39181AC9B6 for ; Wed, 18 Nov 2020 19:54:27 +0000 (UTC) X-FDA: 77498590974.11.woman00_51120852733c Received: from filter.hostedemail.com (10.5.16.251.rfc1918.com [10.5.16.251]) by smtpin11.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E1AC5180F8B82 for ; Wed, 18 Nov 2020 19:54:26 +0000 (UTC) X-HE-Tag: woman00_51120852733c X-Filterd-Recvd-Size: 4037 Received: from mail-lf1-f65.google.com (mail-lf1-f65.google.com [209.85.167.65]) by imf31.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Wed, 18 Nov 2020 19:54:26 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-lf1-f65.google.com with SMTP id z21so4713145lfe.12 for ; Wed, 18 Nov 2020 11:54:26 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=H2ZA3zYNPCWpvzKmMxY8s0OO2jIVsez+rCvGxvvdC+s=; b=WZQ6YW8wPw8pECERhSDGtd0HX0xQE2RsEhFILpF4y/Gl84RqBLNL4eHdg7oDqF79Vc cmHhhtBDKhK3Q/WYOTaZUJcWK6ppR27c2kc7+7GKp8tgCFRT5HO63HqKbGrvQkSCLpt0 Ek9PH7Igvp67beBzJBsgDWR2QSVeKGTFM+9m+rfyA4ML8ANxeyR8bgPc2ypbra8jn9z1 +QRh8vYyXT+P9DQWwK8zKevxU8fROTreZmcP6sC37SRsypz4yc29qjvqT2eRNuAxctqu goOUCznBEyAf7zmVTcF8gpDNk7AbHa+mfWUsDnLWKwQItfsTpaxCcvG+HcTnkJ0TExFM wdMg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=H2ZA3zYNPCWpvzKmMxY8s0OO2jIVsez+rCvGxvvdC+s=; b=O8q8dN6cST6ggjWl8ilT3t1WbZf2fdd/oNn97NZgQ4eVjmPccdkkRTwgvHEOprENF2 nXdbeRBUws8gpU3AIA1LbWYrk5yFSzlBzq1lLSAjIhGmna6Da892lFVz582B10EIXR9T lTKOow9z5ie/Mftsk7RamutqSq8jHmU8xXkuaFF/qoxawT9JgU21mZmC/M5s9rr7o5y4 jtCCBSx+HgQdIRaIKmEaCwwql+5RuBxpnUnp7ziZ41b6l5yjAexyvjEUbBRBTBkS1plc QGLOLlZaTy2+cP2TGMbXcBpZc+4MXGuXfFrum5PnbgElt2ySr0kITiFkE3kjgiRgd5Hr WCpQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM5331xLbF4hyqMMLHq5nzO2Tv7vYXBvUoxeXv9LF47docwT+9Yzcd Z0lwk66eOdaW0NCFk0D5axFuqmvfuowhj/fY8gnaOw== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyuLdLYL7y6xdin2BcLlL/HeSkZIrioePk1JRMdJtvrK1ayjPbHB7g3J/oZNKlVvgLdglWObKcQgHho8HbcA4Q= X-Received: by 2002:a05:6512:3287:: with SMTP id p7mr4794251lfe.346.1605729264736; Wed, 18 Nov 2020 11:54:24 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20201118175726.2453120-1-shakeelb@google.com> <20201118194620.GD186396@carbon.dhcp.thefacebook.com> In-Reply-To: <20201118194620.GD186396@carbon.dhcp.thefacebook.com> From: Shakeel Butt Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2020 11:54:13 -0800 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH] memcg, kmem: further deprecate kmem.limit_in_bytes To: Roman Gushchin Cc: Johannes Weiner , Michal Hocko , Andrew Morton , Linux MM , LKML Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" 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 Wed, Nov 18, 2020 at 11:46 AM Roman Gushchin wrote: > > On Wed, Nov 18, 2020 at 09:57:26AM -0800, Shakeel Butt wrote: > > The deprecation process of kmem.limit_in_bytes started with the commit > > 0158115f702 ("memcg, kmem: deprecate kmem.limit_in_bytes") which also > > explains in detail the motivation behind the deprecation. To summarize, > > it is the unexpected behavior on hitting the kmem limit. This patch > > moves the deprecation process to the next stage by disallowing to set > > the kmem limit. In future we might just remove the kmem.limit_in_bytes > > file completely. > > > > Signed-off-by: Shakeel Butt > > The first stage was done over a year ago, so if there were no complains > it feels like it's a good time to move forward. > > Acked-by: Roman Gushchin Thanks. > > The only question I have is if it's better to return -EINVAL or -ENOTSUPP. > The latter option could be more convenient for userspace, because it will > be clear that the kernel is not supporting the functionality, rather than > the passed value is incorrect (e.g. if the value is read from a config, provided > by a user). I'm not sure though, just an idea. > Let's see what others say. I am ok with -ENOTSUPP as well.