On Fri, 20 Dec 2013 20:46:05 +0400 Glauber Costa <glommer@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Fri, Dec 20, 2013 at 8:44 PM, Luiz Capitulino <lcapitulino@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Fri, 20 Dec 2013 10:03:32 -0500 > > Luiz Capitulino <lcapitulino@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > >> > The answer for all of your questions above can be summarized by noting > >> > that for the lack of other users (at the time), this patch does the bare minimum > >> > for memcg needs. I agree, for instance, that it would be good to pass the level > >> > but since memcg won't do anything with thta, I didn't pass it. > >> > > >> > That should be extended if you need to. > >> > >> That works for me. That is, including this minimal version first and > >> extending it when we get in-tree users. > > > > Btw, there's something I was thinking just right now. If/when we > > convert shrink functions to use this API, they will come to depend > > on CONFIG_MEMCG=y. IOW, they won't work if CONFIG_MEMCG=n. > > > > Is this acceptable (this is an honest question)? Because today, they > > do work when CONFIG_MEMCG=n. Should those shrink functions use the > > shrinker API as a fallback? > > If you have a non-memcg user, that should obviously be available for > CONFIG_MEMCG=n OK, which means we'll have to change it, right? Because, if I'm not missing something, today vmpressure does depend on CONFIG_MEMCG=y. -- 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
