On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 10:02:45AM -0800, David Rientjes wrote: > On Mon, 19 Nov 2012, Glauber Costa wrote: > > > >> In the case I outlined below, for backwards compatibility. What I > > >> actually mean is that memcg *currently* allows arbitrary notifications. > > >> One way to merge those, while moving to a saner 3-point notification, is > > >> to still allow the old writes and fit them in the closest bucket. > > >> > > > > > > Yeah, but I'm wondering why three is the right answer. > > > > > > > This is unrelated to what I am talking about. > > I am talking about pre-defined values with a specific event meaning (in > > his patchset, 3) vs arbitrary numbers valued in bytes. > > > > Right, and I don't see how you can map the memcg thresholds onto Anton's > scheme BTW, there's interface for OOM notification in memcg. See oom_control. I guess other pressure levels can also fit to the interface. -- Kirill A. Shutemov -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-man" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
