On Wed, 2012-08-15 at 13:33 +0400, Glauber Costa wrote: > > This can > > be quite confusing. I am still not sure whether we should mix the two > > things together. If somebody wants to limit the kernel memory he has to > > touch the other limit anyway. Do you have a strong reason to mix the > > user and kernel counters? > > This is funny, because the first opposition I found to this work was > "Why would anyone want to limit it separately?" =p > > It seems that a quite common use case is to have a container with a > unified view of "memory" that it can use the way he likes, be it with > kernel memory, or user memory. I believe those people would be happy to > just silently account kernel memory to user memory, or at the most have > a switch to enable it. > > What gets clear from this back and forth, is that there are people > interested in both use cases. Haven't we already had this discussion during the Prague get together? We discussed the use cases and finally agreed to separate accounting for k and then k+u mem because that satisfies both the Google and Parallels cases. No-one was overjoyed by k and k+u but no-one had a better suggestion ... is there a better way of doing this that everyone can agree to? We do need to get this nailed down because it's the foundation of the patch series. James -- 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/ . Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>