On Mon 09-09-19 13:22:45, Michal Hocko wrote: > On Fri 06-09-19 11:24:55, Shakeel Butt wrote: [...] > > I wonder what has changed since > > <http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20180525185501.82098-1-shakeelb@xxxxxxxxxx/>. > > I have completely forgot about that one. It seems that we have just > repeated the same discussion again. This time we have a poor user who > actually enabled the kmem limit. > > I guess there was no real objection to the change back then. The primary > discussion revolved around the fact that the accounting will stay broken > even when this particular part was fixed. Considering this leads to easy > to trigger crash (with the limit enabled) then I guess we should just > make it less broken and backport to stable trees and have a serious > discussion about discontinuing of the limit. Start by simply failing to > set any limit in the current upstream kernels. Any more concerns/objections to the patch? I can add a reference to your earlier post Shakeel if you want or to credit you the way you prefer. Also are there any objections to start deprecating process of kmem limit? I would see it in two stages - 1st warn in the kernel log pr_warn("kmem.limit_in_bytes is deprecated and will be removed. "Please report your usecase to linux-mm@xxxxxxxxx if you " "depend on this functionality." - 2nd fail any write to kmem.limit_in_bytes - 3rd remove the control file completely -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs
