Re: memcg: softlimit on internal nodes

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Fri 26-04-13 11:37:41, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hey,
> 
> On Fri, Apr 26, 2013 at 01:51:20PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > Maybe I should have been more explicit about this but _yes I do agree_
> > that a separate limit would work as well. I just do not want to
> 
> Heh, the point was more about what we shouldn't be doing, but, yeah,
> it's good that we at least agree on something.  :)
> 
> > Anyway, I will think about cons and pros of the new limit. I think we
> > shouldn't block the first 3 patches in the series which keep the current
> > semantic and just change the internals to do the same thing. Do you
> > agree?
> 
> As the merge window is coming right up, if it isn't something super
> urgent, can we please hold it off until after the merge window?  It
> would be really great if we can pin down the semantics of the knob
> before doing anything. 

I think that merging it into 3.10 would be too ambitious but I think
this core code cleanup makes sense for future discussions so I would
like to post it for -mm tree at least. The sooner it will be the better
IMHO.

> Please.  I'll think / study more about it in the coming weeks.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> -- 
> tejun

-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
--
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




[Index of Archives]     [Linux ARM Kernel]     [Linux ARM]     [Linux Omap]     [Fedora ARM]     [IETF Annouce]     [Security]     [Bugtraq]     [Linux OMAP]     [Linux MIPS]     [eCos]     [Asterisk Internet PBX]     [Linux API]     [Monitors]

  Powered by Linux