Hello, On Wed, Sep 26, 2012 at 09:53:09PM +0400, Glauber Costa wrote: > I understand your trauma about over flexibility, and you know I share of > it. But I don't think there is any need to cap it here. Given kmem > accounted is perfectly hierarchical, and there seem to be plenty of > people who only care about user memory, I see no reason to disallow a > mixed use case here. > > I must say that for my particular use case, enabling it unconditionally > would just work, so it is not that what I have in mind. So, I'm not gonna go as far as pushing for enabling it unconditionally but would really like to hear why it's necessary to make it per node instead of one global switch. Maybe it has already been discussed to hell and back. Care to summarize / point me to it? Thanks. -- tejun -- 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>