From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932496Ab3AJHS0 (ORCPT ); Thu, 10 Jan 2013 02:18:26 -0500 Received: from mx2.parallels.com ([64.131.90.16]:40280 "EHLO mx2.parallels.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932211Ab3AJHSZ (ORCPT ); Thu, 10 Jan 2013 02:18:25 -0500 Message-ID: <50EE6B41.8030205@parallels.com> Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2013 11:18:25 +0400 From: Glauber Costa User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/17.0 Thunderbird/17.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Anton Vorontsov CC: Tejun Heo , David Rientjes , "Pekka Enberg" , Mel Gorman , Michal Hocko , "Kirill A. Shutemov" , "Luiz Capitulino" , Andrew Morton , Greg Thelen , "Leonid Moiseichuk" , KOSAKI Motohiro , Minchan Kim , "Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz" , John Stultz , , , , , , KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] Add mempressure cgroup References: <20130104082751.GA22227@lizard.gateway.2wire.net> <1357288152-23625-1-git-send-email-anton.vorontsov@linaro.org> <20130109203731.GA20454@htj.dyndns.org> <50EDDF1E.6010705@parallels.com> <20130109213604.GA9475@lizard.fhda.edu> <20130109215514.GD20454@htj.dyndns.org> <20130109220641.GA12865@lizard.fhda.edu> In-Reply-To: <20130109220641.GA12865@lizard.fhda.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 01/10/2013 02:06 AM, Anton Vorontsov wrote: > On Wed, Jan 09, 2013 at 01:55:14PM -0800, Tejun Heo wrote: > [...] >>> We can use mempressure w/o memcg, and even then it can (or should :) be >>> useful (for cpuset, for example). >> >> The problem is that you end with, at the very least, duplicate >> hierarchical accounting mechanisms which overlap with each other >> while, most likely, being slightly different. About the same thing >> happened with cpu and cpuacct controllers and we're now trying to >> deprecate the latter. > > Yeah. I started answering your comments about hierarchical accounting, > looked into the memcg code, and realized that *this* is where I need the > memcg stuff. :) > > Thus yes, I guess I'll have to integrate it with memcg, or sort of. > That being my point since the beginning. To generate per-memcg pressure, you need memcg anyway. So you would have to have two different and orthogonal mechanisms, and therefore, double account.