Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2014 16:04:48 +0200
From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.cz>
To: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
Cc: Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>, Greg Thelen <gthelen@google.com>,
        Hugh Dickins <hughd@google.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>,
        KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com>,
        Michel Lespinasse <walken@google.com>,
        Roman Gushchin <klamm@yandex-team.ru>, linux-mm@kvack.org,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, Li Zefan <lizefan@huawei.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] memcg: Allow guarantee reclaim
Message-ID: <20140616140448.GE16915@dhcp22.suse.cz>
References: <20140611075729.GA4520@dhcp22.suse.cz>
 <1402473624-13827-1-git-send-email-mhocko@suse.cz>
 <1402473624-13827-2-git-send-email-mhocko@suse.cz>
 <20140611153631.GH2878@cmpxchg.org>
 <20140612132207.GA32720@dhcp22.suse.cz>
 <20140612135600.GI2878@cmpxchg.org>
 <20140612142237.GB32720@dhcp22.suse.cz>
 <20140612161733.GC23606@htj.dyndns.org>
 <20140616125915.GB16915@dhcp22.suse.cz>
 <20140616135741.GA11542@htj.dyndns.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20140616135741.GA11542@htj.dyndns.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org

On Mon 16-06-14 09:57:41, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hello, Michal.
> 
> On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 02:59:15PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > There sure is a question of how fast userland will move to the new
> > > interface. 
> > 
> > Yeah, I was mostly thinking about those who would need to to bigger
> > changes. AFAIR threads will no longer be distributable between groups.
> 
> Thread-level granularity should go away no matter what, but this is
> completely irrelevant to memcg which can't do per-thread anyway.

Yes, I wasn't afraid about memcg. It was a setup which requires more
controllers that I was worried about.

> For whatever reason, a user is stuck with thread-level granularity for
> controllers which work that way, the user can use the old hierarchies
> for them for the time being.

So he can mount memcg with new cgroup API and others with old?

> > > is used but I don't think there's any chance of removing the knob.
> > > There's a reason why we're introducing a new version of the whole
> > > cgroup interface which can co-exist with the existing one after all.
> > > If you wanna version memcg interface separately, maybe that'd work but
> > > it sounds like a lot of extra hassle for not much gain.
> > 
> > No, I didn't mean to version the interface. I just wanted to have
> > gradual transition for potential soft_limit users.
> > 
> > Maybe I am misunderstanding something but I thought that new version of
> > API will contain all knobs which are not marked .flags = CFTYPE_INSANE
> > while the old API will contain all of them.
> 
> Nope, some changes don't fit that model.  CFTYPE_ON_ON_DFL is the
> opposite. 

OK, I wasn't aware of this. On which branch I find this?

> Knobs marked with the flag only appear on the default
> hierarchy (cgroup core internally calls it the default hierarchy as
> this is the tree all the controllers are attached to by default).

I am not sure I understand. So they are visible only in the hierarchy
mounted with the new cgroup API (sane or how is it called)?
-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/