Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756058Ab2HUKEi (ORCPT ); Tue, 21 Aug 2012 06:04:38 -0400 Received: from mx2.parallels.com ([64.131.90.16]:60815 "EHLO mx2.parallels.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753010Ab2HUKEh (ORCPT ); Tue, 21 Aug 2012 06:04:37 -0400 Message-ID: <50335C74.4000803@parallels.com> Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2012 14:01:24 +0400 From: Glauber Costa User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:14.0) Gecko/20120717 Thunderbird/14.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Michal Hocko CC: , , , , Johannes Weiner , Andrew Morton , , Christoph Lameter , David Rientjes , Pekka Enberg , Pekka Enberg , Suleiman Souhlal Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 09/11] memcg: propagate kmem limiting information to children 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> <20120821100007.GE19797@dhcp22.suse.cz> In-Reply-To: <20120821100007.GE19797@dhcp22.suse.cz> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1861 Lines: 48 On 08/21/2012 02:00 PM, Michal Hocko wrote: > 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? > Way I see it, this is simplifying the code at the expense of complicating the interface. >> 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. > Since this would change a then established behavior, the same discussions about compatibility we ever get to will rise. It is a pain we'd better avoid if we can. > But let's see what others think? > Absolutely. Hello others, what do you think ? -- 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/