On 09/27/2012 04:40 PM, Michal Hocko wrote: > 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. > So let's favor clarity: What you are proposing is that the first level can have a switch for that, and the first level only. Is that right ? At first, I just want to understand what exactly is your proposal. This is not an endorsement of lack thereof. -- 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>