On Wed, 11 Sep 2019 14:00:02 +0200 Michal Hocko <mhocko@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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." pr_warn_once() :) > - 2nd fail any write to kmem.limit_in_bytes > - 3rd remove the control file completely Sounds good to me.
