From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754824Ab3LTQyR (ORCPT ); Fri, 20 Dec 2013 11:54:17 -0500 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:24705 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754136Ab3LTQyP (ORCPT ); Fri, 20 Dec 2013 11:54:15 -0500 Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2013 11:53:59 -0500 From: Luiz Capitulino To: Glauber Costa Cc: Vladimir Davydov , dchinner@redhat.com, Michal Hocko , Johannes Weiner , Andrew Morton , LKML , linux-mm@kvack.org, cgroups@vger.kernel.org, devel@openvz.org, Glauber Costa , John Stultz , Joonsoo Kim , Kamezawa Hiroyuki Subject: Re: [PATCH v14 16/18] vmpressure: in-kernel notifications Message-ID: <20131220115359.225f7503@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: References: <20131220092659.0ed23cf5@redhat.com> <20131220100332.0c5c1ad5@redhat.com> <20131220114439.23af09fc@redhat.com> Organization: Red Hat Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, 20 Dec 2013 20:46:05 +0400 Glauber Costa wrote: > On Fri, Dec 20, 2013 at 8:44 PM, Luiz Capitulino wrote: > > On Fri, 20 Dec 2013 10:03:32 -0500 > > Luiz Capitulino wrote: > > > >> > The answer for all of your questions above can be summarized by noting > >> > that for the lack of other users (at the time), this patch does the bare minimum > >> > for memcg needs. I agree, for instance, that it would be good to pass the level > >> > but since memcg won't do anything with thta, I didn't pass it. > >> > > >> > That should be extended if you need to. > >> > >> That works for me. That is, including this minimal version first and > >> extending it when we get in-tree users. > > > > Btw, there's something I was thinking just right now. If/when we > > convert shrink functions to use this API, they will come to depend > > on CONFIG_MEMCG=y. IOW, they won't work if CONFIG_MEMCG=n. > > > > Is this acceptable (this is an honest question)? Because today, they > > do work when CONFIG_MEMCG=n. Should those shrink functions use the > > shrinker API as a fallback? > > If you have a non-memcg user, that should obviously be available for > CONFIG_MEMCG=n OK, which means we'll have to change it, right? Because, if I'm not missing something, today vmpressure does depend on CONFIG_MEMCG=y.