>>> >>> I am fine with either, I just need a clear sign from you guys so I don't >>> keep deimplementing and reimplementing this forever. >> >> I would be for make it simple now and go with additional features later >> when there is a demand for them. Maybe we will have runtimg switch for >> user memory accounting as well one day. >> >> But let's see what others think? > > In my use case memcg will either be disable or (enabled and kmem > limiting enabled). > > I'm not sure I follow the discussion about history. Are we saying that > once a kmem limit is set then kmem will be accounted/charged to memcg. > Is this discussion about the static branches/etc that are autotuned the > first time is enabled? No, the question is about when you unlimit a former kmem-limited memcg. > The first time its set there parts of the system > will be adjusted in such a way that may impose a performance overhead > (static branches, etc). Thereafter the performance cannot be regained > without a reboot. This makes sense to me. Are we saying that > kmem.limit_in_bytes will have three states? It is not about performance, about interface. Michal says that once a particular memcg was kmem-limited, it will keep accounting pages, even if you make it unlimited. The limits won't be enforced, for sure - there is no limit, but pages will still be accounted. This simplifies the code galore, but I worry about the interface: A person looking at the current status of the files only, without knowledge of past history, can't tell if allocations will be tracked or not. -- 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>