From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Tejun Heo Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] memcg: first step towards hierarchical controller Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2012 15:17:23 -0700 Message-ID: <20120626221723.GB15811@google.com> References: <1340725634-9017-1-git-send-email-glommer@parallels.com> <1340725634-9017-3-git-send-email-glommer@parallels.com> <20120626180451.GP3869@google.com> <20120626220809.GA4653@tiehlicka.suse.cz> <20120626221452.GA15811@google.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Return-path: DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=sender:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-type:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=qIgrTadV2nOaeOekRY82Rbmbt6uq5AKP5eSSvSm+LIk=; b=aycQwuUPELHW9Xcs+rDRf3HowajauWME66uM882H3psQ1mqeafTveVDV5SUTXTnhEh in5kj3UoMtsnXOHSMnP6QEnqW5i6HLmW6xGYkgebJhZtK7UMdcEgP1GhiW/xaJ1OWyal RAdBCoQh3Bo0fvmmJA1AvKhFf79jNZ3BpIiQ4ujycTD4/lyWQaN+O78/QbW+KOFfDE8F MxnqaWgcImG0g+96KhCjDECfnlc1rS2SmMuJXO4W6Lgw7hOgLeVo7L4+X72ROBPok2UV nSjf+8pQRozZgBmoSknVgaCR8DsmDwx5y/6TFsC9l3E07Lb8JD2QTHmbgAx/+n3vbBuG 7u1g== Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20120626221452.GA15811@google.com> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: Michal Hocko Cc: Glauber Costa , cgroups@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com, Johannes Weiner , Andrew Morton On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 03:14:52PM -0700, Tejun Heo wrote: > Hello, Michal. > > On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 12:08:09AM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > > According to my experience, people usually create deeper subtrees > > just because they want to have memcg hierarchy together with other > > controller(s) and the other controller requires a different topology > > but then they do not care about memory.* attributes in parents. > > Those cases are not affected by this change because parents are > > unlimited by default. > > Deeper subtrees without hierarchy and independent limits are usually > > mis-configurations, and we would like to hear about those to help to fix > > them, or they are unfixable usecases which we want to know about as well > > (because then we have a blocker for the unified cgroup hierarchy, don't > > we). > > Yeah, this is something I'm seriously considering doing from cgroup > core. ie. generating a warning message if the user nests cgroups w/ > controllers which don't support full hierarchy. BTW, this is another reason I'm suggesting mount time option so that cgroup core can be told that the specific controller is hierarchy-aware. 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: email@kvack.org