From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Thu, 6 Nov 2008 11:59:58 +0000 (GMT) From: Hugh Dickins Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 7/6] memcg: add atribute (for change bahavior of rmdir) In-Reply-To: <20081106194153.220157ec.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> Message-ID: References: <20081105171637.1b393333.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> <49129493.9070103@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20081106194153.220157ec.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki Cc: balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com, "linux-mm@kvack.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "menage@google.com" , "nishimura@mxp.nes.nec.co.jp" List-ID: On Thu, 6 Nov 2008, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote: > On Thu, 06 Nov 2008 12:24:11 +0530 > Balbir Singh wrote: > > KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote: > > > > > > 1. change force_empty to do move account rather than forget all > > > > I would like this to be selectable, please. We don't want to break behaviour and > > not everyone would like to pay the cost of movement. > > How about a patch like this ? I'd like to move this as [2/7], if possible. > It obviously needs painful rework. If I found it difficult, schedule this as [7/7]. > > BTW, cost of movement itself is not far from cost for force_empty. > > If you can't find why "forget" is bad, please consider one more day. My recollection from a year ago is that force_empty totally violated the rules established elsewhere, making a nonsense of it all: once a force_empty had been done, you couldn't really be sure of anything (perhaps it deserved a Taint flag). Without studying your proposals at all, I do believe you've a good chance of creating a sensible and consistent force_empty by moving account, and abandoning the old "forget all" approach completely. Hugh -- 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