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 20:16:35
Also in: cgroups, lkml

On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 12:02:14AM +0400, Glauber Costa wrote:
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 ?
I'm fairly sure you can make about the same argument about
use_hierarchy.  There is a choice to make here and one is simpler than
the other.  I want the additional complexity justified by actual use
cases which isn't too much to ask for especially when the complexity
is something visible to userland.

So let's please stop arguing semantics.  If this is definitely
necessary for some use cases, sure let's have it.  If not, let's
consider it later.  I'll stop responding on "inherent differences."  I
don't think we'll get anywhere with that.

Michal, Johannes, Kamezawa, what are your thoughts?

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