On Wed, 2012-08-15 at 14:55 +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > On Wed 15-08-12 12:12:23, James Bottomley wrote: > > 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. > > There is a slot in MM/memcg minisum at KS so we have a slot to discuss > this. Sure, to get things moving, can you pre-prime us with what you're thinking in this area so we can be prepared (and if it doesn't work, tell you beforehand)? Thanks, 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>