On Wed, May 30, 2018 at 11:14:33AM -0700, Shakeel Butt wrote: > On Tue, May 29, 2018 at 1:31 AM, Michal Hocko <mhocko@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Mon 28-05-18 10:23:07, Shakeel Butt wrote: > >> On Mon, May 28, 2018 at 2:11 AM, Michal Hocko <mhocko@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> Though is there a precedence where the broken feature is not fixed > >> because an alternative is available? > > > > Well, I can see how breaking GFP_NOFAIL semantic is problematic, on the > > other hand we keep saying that kmem accounting in v1 is hard usable and > > strongly discourage people from using it. Sure we can add the code which > > handles _this_ particular case but that wouldn't make the whole thing > > more usable I strongly suspect. Maybe I am wrong and you can provide > > some specific examples. Is GFP_NOFAIL that common to matter? > > > > In any case we should balance between the code maintainability here. > > Adding more cruft into the allocator path is not free. > > > > We do not use kmem limits internally and this is something I found > through code inspection. If this patch is increasing the cost of code > maintainability I am fine with dropping it but at least there should a > comment saying that kmem limits are broken and no need fix. I agree. Even, I didn't know kmem is strongly discouraged until now. Then, why is it enabled by default on cgroup v1? Let's turn if off with comment "It's broken so do not use/fix. Instead, please move to cgroup v2". -- 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
