On Thu 27-09-12 16:20:55, Glauber Costa wrote: > On 09/27/2012 04:15 PM, Michal Hocko wrote: > > On Wed 26-09-12 16:33:34, Tejun Heo wrote: > > [...] > >>>> So, this seems properly crazy to me at the similar level of > >>>> use_hierarchy fiasco. I'm gonna NACK on this. > >>> > >>> As I said: all use cases I particularly care about are covered by a > >>> global switch. > >>> > >>> I am laying down my views because I really believe they make more sense. > >>> But at some point, of course, I'll shut up if I believe I am a lone voice. > >>> > >>> I believe it should still be good to hear from mhocko and kame, but from > >>> your point of view, would all the rest, plus the introduction of a > >>> global switch make it acceptable to you? > >> > >> The only thing I'm whining about is per-node switch + silently > >> ignoring past accounting, so if those two are solved, I think I'm > >> pretty happy with the rest. > > > > I think that per-group "switch" is not nice as well but if we make it > > hierarchy specific (which I am proposing for quite some time) and do not > > let enable accounting for a group with tasks then we get both > > flexibility and reasonable semantic. A global switch sounds too coars to > > me and it really not necessary. > > > > Would this work with you? > > > > How exactly would that work? AFAIK, we have a single memcg root, we > can't have multiple memcg hierarchies in a system. Am I missing something? Well root is so different that we could consider the first level as the real roots for hierarchies. -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs -- 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>