From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Johannes Weiner Subject: Re: [PATCH 15/18] mm: memcontrol: make swap tracking an integral part of memory control Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2020 10:39:23 -0400 Message-ID: <20200421143923.GC341682@cmpxchg.org> References: <20200420221126.341272-1-hannes@cmpxchg.org> <20200420221126.341272-16-hannes@cmpxchg.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Return-path: DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cmpxchg-org.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-disposition:content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to; bh=FUghwdK61ELIcdqNXkNEUPkemM8u8aFA3cSbQm57Oy0=; b=gFxehvHGSNlG++mszljqSCAK7x9JFhjfQndMRxcNzeicsRBEWHLOnuSk7TV/f0lpJS hI40Kn4d4RhA2dhOIjiFgB4c9koyFw954Gi9PeFxAZnTNJx7vt622EPZLNpn9eUYH9le O9pbbJh5hVwKmuS42wfYZ3Y+WPU27d7VfvhPFCoLpJ467jhpzjCYj6m1WrPsIbmBx/Kr 4h/THAUC+GEjA1w+FrC360VuFTaR4mLjUzraOoMvViF56WaYnVAS8b6VWjmlABi86u0L 2yIVk9FFEx1KfLomk93emTZXN5qcyqBBKpgW+00of/GRzhQUA58c3n0SxXHmwIwDoTJh opFQ== Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: cgroups-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org List-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" To: Alex Shi Cc: Joonsoo Kim , Shakeel Butt , Hugh Dickins , Michal Hocko , "Kirill A. Shutemov" , Roman Gushchin , linux-mm-Bw31MaZKKs3YtjvyW6yDsg@public.gmane.org, cgroups-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, kernel-team-b10kYP2dOMg@public.gmane.org Hi Alex, thanks for your quick review so far, I'll add the tags to the patches. On Tue, Apr 21, 2020 at 05:27:30PM +0800, Alex Shi wrote: > > > 在 2020/4/21 上午6:11, Johannes Weiner 写道: > > The swapaccount=0 boot option will continue to exist, and it will > > eliminate the page_counter overhead and hide the swap control files, > > but it won't disable swap slot ownership tracking. > > May we add extra explanation for this change to user? and the default > memsw limitations? Can you elaborate what you think is missing and where you would like to see it documented? >From a semantics POV, nothing changes with this patch. The memsw limit defaults to "max", so it doesn't exert any control per default. The only difference is whether we maintain swap records or not.