On Wed 24-01-18 16:13:06, Vinayak Menon wrote: > On 1/24/2018 3:08 PM, Michal Hocko wrote: [...] > > Try to be more realistic. We have way too many sysctls. Some of them are > > really implementation specific and then it is not really trivial to get > > rid of them because people tend to (think they) depend on them. This is > > a user interface like any others and we do not add them without a due > > scrutiny. Moreover we do have an interface to suppress the effect of the > > faultaround. Instead you are trying to add another tunable for something > > that we can live without altogether. See my point? > > I agree on the sysctl part. But why should we disable faultaround and > not find a way to make it useful ? I didn't say that. Please read what I've written. I really hate your new sysctl, because that is not a solution. If you can find a different one than disabling it then go ahead. But do not try to put burden to users because they know what to set. Because they won't. -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs -- 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>
