From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756318Ab3LTRBd (ORCPT ); Fri, 20 Dec 2013 12:01:33 -0500 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:10383 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753454Ab3LTRBb (ORCPT ); Fri, 20 Dec 2013 12:01:31 -0500 Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2013 12:00:59 -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: <20131220120059.7cc0744e@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: References: <20131220092659.0ed23cf5@redhat.com> <20131220100332.0c5c1ad5@redhat.com> <20131220114439.23af09fc@redhat.com> <20131220115359.225f7503@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 20:58:52 +0400 Glauber Costa wrote: > On Fri, Dec 20, 2013 at 8:53 PM, Luiz Capitulino wrote: > > 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. > > You mean the main vmpressure mechanism? > Sorry, this was out of my mental cachelines. Yes, vmpressure depends > on MEMCG, because > the pressure interface is memcg-specific (global == root memcg) > > You might want to change that so you can reuse the mechanism and let > only the user interface > depend on memcg. OK, that makes sense. Thanks Glauber.