Re: [PATCH 5/8] mm: memcontrol: account socket memory on unified hierarchy

Johannes Weiner
2015-10-29T16:10:27Z

On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 04:25:46PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Tue 27-10-15 09:42:27, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 05:15:54PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > On Tue 27-10-15 11:41:38, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> > > > IMO that's an implementation detail and a historical artifact that
> > > > should not be exposed to the user. And that's the thing I hate about
> > > > the current opt-out knob.
> >
> > You carefully skipped over this part. We can ignore it for socket
> > memory but it's something we need to figure out when it comes to slab
> > accounting and tracking.
>
> I am sorry, I didn't mean to skip this part, I though it would be clear
> from the previous text. I think kmem accounting falls into the same
> category. Have a sane default and a global boottime knob to override it
> for those that think differently - for whatever reason they might have.

Yes, that makes sense to me.

Like cgroup.memory=nosocket, would you think it makes sense to include
slab in the default for functional/semantical completeness and provide
a cgroup.memory=noslab for powerusers?