On 09/27/2012 04:15 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:

On Wed 26-09-12 16:33:34, Tejun Heo wrote:
[...]

quoted

quoted

quoted

So, this seems properly crazy to me at the similar level of
use_hierarchy fiasco.  I'm gonna NACK on this.

As I said: all use cases I particularly care about are covered by a
global switch.

I am laying down my views because I really believe they make more sense.
But at some point, of course, I'll shut up if I believe I am a lone voice.

I believe it should still be good to hear from mhocko and kame, but from
your point of view, would all the rest, plus the introduction of a
global switch make it acceptable to you?

The only thing I'm whining about is per-node switch + silently
ignoring past accounting, so if those two are solved, I think I'm
pretty happy with the rest.

I think that per-group "switch" is not nice as well but if we make it
hierarchy specific (which I am proposing for quite some time) and do not
let enable accounting for a group with tasks then we get both
flexibility and reasonable semantic. A global switch sounds too coars to
me and it really not necessary.

Would this work with you?

How exactly would that work? AFAIK, we have a single memcg root, we
can't have multiple memcg hierarchies in a system. Am I missing something?


--
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>