Message-ID: <20140612161733.GC23606@htj.dyndns.org>
Date:	Thu, 12 Jun 2014 12:17:33 -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>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Li Zefan <lizefan@...wei.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] memcg: Allow guarantee reclaim

Hello, Michal.

On Thu, Jun 12, 2014 at 04:22:37PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> The primary question would be, whether this is is the best transition
> strategy. I do not know how many users apart from developers are really
> using unified hierarchy. I would be worried that we merge a feature which
> will not be used for a long time.

I'm planning to drop __DEVEL__ mask from the unified hierarchy in a
cycle, at most two.  The biggest hold up at the moment is
straightening out the interfaces and interaction between memcg and
blkcg because I think it'd be silly to have to go through another
round of interface versioning effort right after transitioning to
unified hierarchy.  I'm not too confident whether it'd be possible to
get blkcg completely in shape by that time, but, if that takes too
long, I'll just leave blkcg behind temporarily.  So, at least from
kernel side, it's not gonna be too long.

There sure is a question of how fast userland will move to the new
interface.  Some are already playing with unified hierarchy and
planning to migrate as soon as possible but there sure will be others
who will take more time.  Can't tell for sure, but the thing is that
migration to min/low/high/max scheme is a signficant migration effort
too, so I'm not sure how much we'd gain by doing that separately.
It'd be an extra transition step for userland (optional but still),
more combinations of configration to handle for memcg, and it's not
like unified hierarchy is that difficult to transition to.

> Moreover, if somebody wants to transition from soft limit then it would
> be really hard because switching to unified hierarchy might be a no-go.

Why would that be a no-go?  Its usage is mostly similar with
tranditional hierarchies and can be used with other hierarchies, so
while it'd take some adaptation, in most cases gradual transition
shouldn't be a big problem.

> I think that it is clear that we should deprecate soft_limit ASAP. I
> also think it wont't hurt to have min, low, high in both old and unified
> API and strongly warn if somebody tries to use soft_limit along with any
> of the new APIs in the first step. Later we can even forbid any
> combination by a hard failure.

I don't quite understand how you plan to deprecate it.  Sure you can
fail with -EINVAL or whatnot when the wrong combination is used but I
don't think there's any chance of removing the knob.  There's a reason
why we're introducing a new version of the whole cgroup interface
which can co-exist with the existing one after all.  If you wanna
version memcg interface separately, maybe that'd work but it sounds
like a lot of extra hassle for not much gain.

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