[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20120926163648.GO16296@google.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2012 09:36:48 -0700
From: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>
Cc: Glauber Costa <glommer@...allels.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, cgroups@...r.kernel.org,
kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com, devel@...nvz.org,
linux-mm@...ck.org, Suleiman Souhlal <suleiman@...gle.com>,
Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 04/13] kmem accounting basic infrastructure
Hello, Michal, Glauber.
On Wed, Sep 26, 2012 at 04:03:47PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> Haven't we already discussed that a new memcg should inherit kmem_accounted
> from its parent for use_hierarchy?
> Say we have
> root
> |
> A (kmem_accounted = 1, use_hierachy = 1)
> \
> B (kmem_accounted = 0)
> \
> C (kmem_accounted = 1)
>
> B find's itself in an awkward situation becuase it doesn't want to
> account u+k but it ends up doing so becuase C.
Do we really want this level of flexibility? What's wrong with a
global switch at the root? I'm not even sure we want this to be
optional at all. The only reason I can think of is that it might
screw up some configurations in use which are carefully crafted to
suit userland-only usage but for that isn't what we need a transition
plan rather than another ultra flexible config option that not many
really understand the implication of?
In the same vein, do we really need both .kmem_accounted and config
option? If someone is turning on MEMCG, just include kmem accounting.
Thanks.
--
tejun
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists