On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 12:22:53PM -0400, Tejun Heo wrote: > Hello, > > On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 06:12:18PM +0200, Johannes Weiner wrote: > > But they have been failing indefinitely forever once you hit the hard > > limit in the past. There was never an async reclaim provision there. > > > > I can definitely see that the unconstrained high limit breaching needs > > to be fixed one way or another, I just don't quite understand why you > > chose to go for new semantics. Is there a new or a specific usecase > > you had in mind when you chose deferred reclaim over simply failing? > > Hmmm... so if we just fail, it breaks the assumptions that slab/slub > is making and while they might not fail outright would behave in an > undesirable way. It's just that we didn't notice that before with > limit_on_bytes and at least on the v2 interface the distinction > between high and max makes the problem easy to deal with from high > enforcement. Gotcha, it makes sense to address this then. Thanks for clarifying. Acked-by: Johannes Weiner <hannes@xxxxxxxxxxx> -- 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
