On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 2:56 AM, David Rientjes <rientjes@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Thu, 31 May 2012, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote: > >> > This is tangent to the discussion, we need to revisit why an application >> > other than a daemon managing a set of memcgs would ever need to know the >> > information in /proc/meminfo. No use-case was ever presented in the >> > changelog and its not clear how this is at all relevant. So before >> > changing the kernel, please describe how this actually matters in a real- >> > world scenario. >> >> Huh? Don't you know a meanings of a namespace ISOLATION? isolation mean, >> isolated container shouldn't be able to access global information. If you >> want to lean container/namespace concept, tasting openvz or solaris container >> is a good start. > > As I said, LXC and namespace isolation is a tangent to the discussion of > faking the /proc/meminfo for the memcg context of a thread. Because of, /proc/meminfo affect a lot of libraries behavior. So, it's not only application issue. If you can't rewrite _all_ of userland assets, fake meminfo can't be escaped. Again see alternative container implementation. > >> But anyway, I dislike current implementaion. So, I NAK this patch too. >> > > I'm glad you reached that conclusion, but I think you did so for a much > different (although unspecified) reason. > > Thanks. -- 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/ . Fight unfair telecom internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/ Don't email: <a href