[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140611123109.GA17777@htj.dyndns.org>
Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2014 08:31:09 -0400
From: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>
Cc: Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
Greg Thelen <gthelen@...gle.com>,
Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>,
KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>,
Michel Lespinasse <walken@...gle.com>,
Roman Gushchin <klamm@...dex-team.ru>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] memcg: Allow hard guarantee mode for low limit
reclaim
Hello, Michal.
On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 09:57:29AM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> Is this the kind of symmetry Tejun is asking for and that would make
> change is Nack position? I am still not sure it satisfies his soft
Yes, pretty much. What primarily bothered me was the soft/hard
guarantees being chosen by a toggle switch while the soft/hard limits
can be configured separately and combined.
> guarantee objections from other email.
I was wondering about the usefulness of "low" itself in isolation and
I still think it'd be less useful than "high", but as there seem to be
use cases which can be served with that and especially as a part of a
consistent control scheme, I have no objection.
"low" definitely requires a notification mechanism tho.
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