On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 11:53:37AM -0700, Ying Han wrote: > On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 7:53 AM, Johannes Weiner <hannes@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > Hi! > > > > Here is a patch series that is a result of the memcg discussions on > > LSF (memcg-aware global reclaim, global lru removal, struct > > page_cgroup reduction, soft limit implementation) and the recent > > feature discussions on linux-mm. > > > > The long-term idea is to have memcgs no longer bolted to the side of > > the mm code, but integrate it as much as possible such that there is a > > native understanding of containers, and that the traditional !memcg > > setup is just a singular group. This series is an approach in that > > direction. > > > > It is a rather early snapshot, WIP, barely tested etc., but I wanted > > to get your opinions before further pursuing it. It is also part of > > my counter-argument to the proposals of adding memcg-reclaim-related > > user interfaces at this point in time, so I wanted to push this out > > the door before things are merged into .40. > > > > The memcg-reclaim-related user interface I assume was the watermark > configurable tunable we were talking about in the per-memcg > background reclaim patch. I think we got some agreement to remove > the watermark tunable at the first step. But the newly added > memory.soft_limit_async_reclaim as you proposed seems to be a usable > interface. Actually, I meant the soft limit reclaim statistics. There is a comment about that in the 6/6 changelog. -- 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>