[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAOS58YNj-L4ocwn-c27ho4WPW41MKOeJbnLZ8N8r4eUkoxC7GA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2012 10:44:32 -0700
From: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To: Glauber Costa <glommer@...allels.com>
Cc: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>, 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, Glauber.
On Wed, Sep 26, 2012 at 10:36 AM, Glauber Costa <glommer@...allels.com> wrote:
> This was discussed multiple times. Our interest is to preserve existing
> deployed setup, that were tuned in a world where kmem didn't exist.
> Because we also feed kmem to the user counter, this may very well
> disrupt their setup.
So, that can be served by .kmem_accounted at root, no?
> User memory, unlike kernel memory, may very well be totally in control
> of the userspace application, so it is not unreasonable to believe that
> extra pages appearing in a new kernel version may break them.
>
> It is actually a much worse compatibility problem than flipping
> hierarchy, in comparison
Again, what's wrong with one switch at the root?
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