On Fri, Apr 19, 2013 at 05:26:20PM -0700, Tejun Heo wrote: > If such actual soft limit is desired (I don't know, it just seems like > a very fundamental / logical feature to me), please don't try to > somehow overload "softlimit". They are two fundamentally different > knobs, both make sense in their own ways, and when you stop confusing > the two, there's nothing ambiguous about what what each knob means in > hierarchical situations. This goes the same for the "untrusted" flag > Ying told me, which seems like another confused way to overload two > meanings onto "softlimit". Don't overload! As for how actually to clean up this yet another mess in memcg, I don't know. Maybe introduce completely new knobs - say, oom_threshold, reclaim_threshold, and reclaim_trigger - and alias hardlimit to oom_threshold and softlimit to recalim_trigger? BTW, "softlimit" should default to 0. Nothing else makes any sense. Maybe you can gate it with "sane_behavior" flag or something. I don't know. It's your mess to clean up. :P Thanks. -- tejun -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe cgroups" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
