From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from psmtp.com (na3sys010amx155.postini.com [74.125.245.155]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 75D316B005D for ; Wed, 26 Sep 2012 18:10:52 -0400 (EDT) Received: by dadi14 with SMTP id i14so268074dad.14 for ; Wed, 26 Sep 2012 15:10:51 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2012 15:10:46 -0700 From: Tejun Heo Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 04/13] kmem accounting basic infrastructure Message-ID: <20120926221046.GA10453@mtj.dyndns.org> References: <50634105.8060302@parallels.com> <20120926180124.GA12544@google.com> <50634FC9.4090609@parallels.com> <20120926193417.GJ12544@google.com> <50635B9D.8020205@parallels.com> <20120926195648.GA20342@google.com> <50635F46.7000700@parallels.com> <20120926201629.GB20342@google.com> <50637298.2090904@parallels.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <50637298.2090904@parallels.com> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: 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, Glauber. On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 01:24:40AM +0400, Glauber Costa wrote: > "kmem_accounted" is not a switch. It is an internal representation only. > The semantics, that we discussed exhaustively in San Diego, is that a > group that is not limited is not accounted. This is simple and consistent. > > Since the limits are still per-cgroup, you are actually proposing more > user-visible complexity than me, since you are adding yet another file, > with its own semantics. I was confused. I thought it was exposed as a switch to userland (it being right below .use_hierarchy tripped red alert). This is internal flag dependent upon kernel limit being set. My apologies. So, the proposed behavior is to allow enabling kmemcg anytime but ignore what happened inbetween? Where the knob is changes but the weirdity seems all the same. What prevents us from having a single switch at root which can only be flipped when there's no children? Backward compatibility is covered with single switch and I really don't think "you can enable limits for kernel memory anytime but we don't keep track of whatever happened before it was flipped the first time because the first time is always special" is a sane thing to expose to userland. Or am I misunderstanding the proposed behavior again? 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