On Tue 26-09-17 13:54:23, Michal Hocko wrote: > On Tue 26-09-17 19:45:45, Yafang Shao wrote: > > >> > To be honest I am not entirely sure this is worth the code and the > > >> > future maintenance burden. > > >> I'm not sure if this code is a burden for the future maintenance, but > > >> I think that if we don't introduce this code it is a burden to the > > >> admins. > > > > > > anytime we might need to tweak background vs direct limit we would have > > > to change these checks as well and that sounds like a maint. burden to > > > me. > > > > Would pls. show me some example ? > > What kind of examples would you like to see. I meant that if the current > logic of bacground vs. direct limit changes the code to check it which > is at a different place IIRC would have to be kept in sync. > > That being said, this is my personal opinion, I will not object if there > is a general consensus on merging this. I just believe that this is not > simply worth adding a single line of code. You can then a lot of harm by > setting different values which would pass the added check. So I personally think that the checks Yafang added are worth the extra code. The situation with ratio/bytes interface and hard/background limit is complex enough that it makes sense to have basic sanity checks to me. That being said I don't have too strong opinion on this so just documentation update would be also fine by me. Honza -- Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxxx> SUSE Labs, CR -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>
