Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2017 15:33:20 +0200
From: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
To: Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>
Cc: Yafang Shao <laoar.shao@gmail.com>, Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>,
        akpm@linux-foundation.org, Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>,
        vdavydov.dev@gmail.com, jlayton@redhat.com, nborisov@suse.com,
        "Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@mit.edu>, mawilcox@microsoft.com,
        linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] mm: introduce validity check on vm dirtiness settings
Message-ID: <20170926133320.GD13627@quack2.suse.cz>
References: <1505861015-11919-1-git-send-email-laoar.shao@gmail.com>
 <20170926102532.culqxb45xwzafomj@dhcp22.suse.cz>
 <CALOAHbAbFedJ-h+QUWeeoAnpeEfpYe2T1GutFb56kBeL=2jN0A@mail.gmail.com>
 <20170926112656.tbu7nr2lxdqt5rft@dhcp22.suse.cz>
 <CALOAHbB-H8vtGH4PE8Tr+jmvrQZc3bRXqnG9R1QBQfJKvaHP4g@mail.gmail.com>
 <20170926115423.wdnctuqtxbhpdidx@dhcp22.suse.cz>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20170926115423.wdnctuqtxbhpdidx@dhcp22.suse.cz>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1473
Lines: 33

On Tue 26-09-17 13:54:23, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Tue 26-09-17 19:45:45, Yafang Shao wrote:
> > >> > To be honest I am not entirely sure this is worth the code and the
> > >> > future maintenance burden.
> > >> I'm not sure if this code is a burden for the future maintenance, but
> > >> I think that if we don't introduce this code it is a burden to the
> > >> admins.
> > >
> > > anytime we might need to tweak background vs direct limit we would have
> > > to change these checks as well and that sounds like a maint. burden to
> > > me.
> > 
> > Would pls. show me some example ?
> 
> What kind of examples would you like to see. I meant that if the current
> logic of bacground vs. direct limit changes the code to check it which
> is at a different place IIRC would have to be kept in sync.
> 
> That being said, this is my personal opinion, I will not object if there
> is a general consensus on merging this. I just believe that this is not
> simply worth adding a single line of code. You can then a lot of harm by
> setting different values which would pass the added check.

So I personally think that the checks Yafang added are worth the extra
code. The situation with ratio/bytes interface and hard/background limit is
complex enough that it makes sense to have basic sanity checks to me. That
being said I don't have too strong opinion on this so just documentation
update would be also fine by me.

								Honza
-- 
Jan Kara <jack@suse.com>
SUSE Labs, CR