Re: [PATCH v2 09/11] memcg: propagate kmem limiting information tochildren

[Michal Hocko]

On Tue 21-08-12 13:22:09, Glauber Costa wrote:
> On 08/21/2012 11:54 AM, Michal Hocko wrote:
[...]
> > But maybe you have a good use case for that?
> > 
> Honestly, I don't. For my particular use case, this would be always on,
> and end of story. I was operating under the belief that being able to
> say "Oh, I regret", and then turning it off would be beneficial, even at
> the expense of the - self contained - complication.
> 
> For the general sanity of the interface, it is also a bit simpler to say
> "if kmem is unlimited, x happens", which is a verifiable statement, than
> to have a statement that is dependent on past history. 

OK, fair point. We shouldn't rely on the history. Maybe
memory.kmem.limit_in_bytes could return some special value like -1 in
such a case?

> But all of those need of course, as you pointed out, to be traded off
> by the code complexity.
> 
> I am fine with either, I just need a clear sign from you guys so I don't
> keep deimplementing and reimplementing this forever.

I would be for make it simple now and go with additional features later
when there is a demand for them. Maybe we will have runtimg switch for
user memory accounting as well one day.

But let's see what others think?
-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/