Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2012 12:00:07 +0200
From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.cz>
To: Glauber Costa <glommer@parallels.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, cgroups@vger.kernel.org,
        devel@openvz.org, Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com, Christoph Lameter <cl@linux.com>,
        David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>,
        Pekka Enberg <penberg@kernel.org>,
        Pekka Enberg <penberg@cs.helsinki.fi>,
        Suleiman Souhlal <suleiman@google.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 09/11] memcg: propagate kmem limiting information to
 children
Message-ID: <20120821100007.GE19797@dhcp22.suse.cz>
References: <1344517279-30646-1-git-send-email-glommer@parallels.com>
 <1344517279-30646-10-git-send-email-glommer@parallels.com>
 <20120817090005.GC18600@dhcp22.suse.cz>
 <502E0BC3.8090204@parallels.com>
 <20120817093504.GE18600@dhcp22.suse.cz>
 <502E17C4.7060204@parallels.com>
 <20120817103550.GF18600@dhcp22.suse.cz>
 <502E1E90.1080805@parallels.com>
 <20120821075430.GA19797@dhcp22.suse.cz>
 <50335341.6010400@parallels.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <50335341.6010400@parallels.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1501
Lines: 37

On Tue 21-08-12 13:22:09, Glauber Costa wrote:
> On 08/21/2012 11:54 AM, Michal Hocko wrote:
[...]
> > But maybe you have a good use case for that?
> > 
> Honestly, I don't. For my particular use case, this would be always on,
> and end of story. I was operating under the belief that being able to
> say "Oh, I regret", and then turning it off would be beneficial, even at
> the expense of the - self contained - complication.
> 
> For the general sanity of the interface, it is also a bit simpler to say
> "if kmem is unlimited, x happens", which is a verifiable statement, than
> to have a statement that is dependent on past history. 

OK, fair point. We shouldn't rely on the history. Maybe
memory.kmem.limit_in_bytes could return some special value like -1 in
such a case?

> But all of those need of course, as you pointed out, to be traded off
> by the code complexity.
> 
> I am fine with either, I just need a clear sign from you guys so I don't
> keep deimplementing and reimplementing this forever.

I would be for make it simple now and go with additional features later
when there is a demand for them. Maybe we will have runtimg switch for
user memory accounting as well one day.

But let's see what others think?
-- 
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/