From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Tejun Heo Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 04/13] kmem accounting basic infrastructure Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2012 11:01:24 -0700 Message-ID: <20120926180124.GA12544@google.com> References: <1347977050-29476-1-git-send-email-glommer@parallels.com> <1347977050-29476-5-git-send-email-glommer@parallels.com> <20120926140347.GD15801@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20120926163648.GO16296@google.com> <50633D24.6020002@parallels.com> <50634105.8060302@parallels.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=PzzudjHcYDYwSQeWAzjtywHI4R9pD13kslWW4Dvr2Zg=; b=LxMr2dNzmUtmF91mWEtvbTlEn7AFXIMhk4jYQ6YUZcKIvwnNimE2+4AUB+VmVCMTEB r5Kl/ZWSpuwPlOLx9rL24v7svtxZkm0Skpgv5+5MjfuD9q+KjhrERdkFKPel5xzUkubd tyDKFk3FWrJZMC8q6w1mk9wP2NsfhHWqO0sIvku5AJ1GrMv50PumNeiDRuZlW/84LiMO ENzyZ7kI9IUgIBXjfAjVrsvPNx7nQP/Ecy4J0AvzMKItMNCpLah6qSD21bhXjg5v0Spy 8pLQQDcUH7Vlc1sxoVWanR8BtTFBeFykInKmMM0MeWP/gu17HhffC1/N4Vt6rBDsPkZT ChDQ== Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <50634105.8060302@parallels.com> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: Glauber Costa Cc: Michal Hocko , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, cgroups@vger.kernel.org, kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com, devel@openvz.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, Suleiman Souhlal , Frederic Weisbecker , Mel Gorman , David Rientjes , Johannes Weiner 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: email@kvack.org