Re: [PATCH v3 04/13] kmem accounting basic infrastructure
From: Glauber Costa <hidden>
Date: 2012-09-26 20:05:47
Also in:
linux-mm, lkml
On 09/26/2012 11:56 PM, Tejun Heo wrote:
Hello, On Wed, Sep 26, 2012 at 11:46:37PM +0400, Glauber Costa wrote:quoted
Besides not being part of cgroup core, and respecting very much both cgroups' and basic sanity properties, kmem is an actual feature that some people want, and some people don't. There is no reason to believe that applications that want will live in the same environment with ones that don't want.I don't know. It definitely is less crazy than .use_hierarchy but I wouldn't say it's an inherently different thing. I mean, what does it even mean to have u+k limit on one subtree and not on another branch? And we worry about things like what if parent doesn't enable it but its chlidren do.
It is inherently different. To begin with, it actually contemplates two use cases. It is not a work around. The meaning is also very well defined. The meaning of having this enabled in one subtree and not in other is: Subtree A wants to track kernel memory. Subtree B does not. It's that, and never more than that. There is no maybes and no buts, no magic knobs that makes it behave in a crazy way. If a children enables it but the parent does not, this does what every tree does: enable it from that point downwards.
This is a feature which adds complexity. If the feature is necessary and justified, sure. If not, let's please not and let's err on the side of conservativeness. We can always add it later but the other direction is much harder.
I disagree. Having kmem tracking adds complexity. Having to cope with the use case where we turn it on dynamically to cope with the "user page only" use case adds complexity. But I see no significant complexity being added by having it per subtree. Really. You have the use_hierarchy fiasco in mind, and I do understand that you are raising the flag and all that. But think in terms of functionality: This thing here is a lot more similar to swap than use_hierarchy. Would you argue that memsw should be per-root ? The reason why it shouldn't: Some people want to limit memory consumption all the way to the swap, some people don't. Same with kmem. -- 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>