Thread (127 messages) 127 messages, 9 authors, 2012-10-08

Re: [PATCH v3 04/13] kmem accounting basic infrastructure

From: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
Date: 2012-09-26 18:01:30
Also in: linux-mm, lkml

Hello,

On Wed, Sep 26, 2012 at 09:53:09PM +0400, Glauber Costa wrote:
I understand your trauma about over flexibility, and you know I share of
it. But I don't think there is any need to cap it here. Given kmem
accounted is perfectly hierarchical, and there seem to be plenty of
people who only care about user memory, I see no reason to disallow a
mixed use case here.

I must say that for my particular use case, enabling it unconditionally
would just work, so it is not that what I have in mind.
So, I'm not gonna go as far as pushing for enabling it unconditionally
but would really like to hear why it's necessary to make it per node
instead of one global switch.  Maybe it has already been discussed to
hell and back.  Care to summarize / point me to it?

Thanks.

-- 
tejun

--
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: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>
Keyboard shortcuts
hback out one level
jnext message in thread
kprevious message in thread
ldrill in
Escclose help / fold thread tree
?toggle this help