On Wed 17-07-24 16:44:53, Johannes Weiner wrote: [...] > The problem is that once global resetting is allowed, it makes the > number reported in memory.peak unreliable for everyone. You just don't > know, and can't tell, if somebody wrote to it recently. It's not too > much of a leap to say this breaks the existing interface contract. I do not remember any bug reports from v1 where there was a max usage misreported because of uncoordinated value reseting. So while you are right that this is theoretically possible I am not convinced this is a real problem in practice. On the other hand it seems there is a wider agreement this shouldn't be added to v2 and I do respect that. > You have to decide whether the above is worth implementing. But my > take is that the downsides of the simpler solution outweigh its > benefits. While this seems quite elegant I am not convinced this is really worth the additional code for a metric like peak memory consumption which is a very limited metric in a presence of memory reclaim. Thanks! -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs
