> On Wed 04-05-11 12:55:19, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote: > > >> Ah, right. So, do you have an alternative idea? > > > > > > Why cannot we just keep the global reclaim semantic and make it free > > > memory (hard_limit - usage_in_bytes) based with low limit as the trigger > > > for reclaiming? > > > > Because it's not free memory. > > In some sense it is because it defines the available memory for a group. > > > the cgroup doesn't reach a limit. but.... > > Same way how we do not get down to no free memory (due to reserves > etc.). Or am I missing something. Of cource, it's possible. The only two problem are 1) need much much trivial rewrite exist code and 2) naming issue (it's not _free_). So, I'm going away from this discussion. ;-) I don't have strong opinion this. I only wrote the current decision reason. I don't dislike your idea too. Thanks. -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxx For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Fight unfair telecom internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/ Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>